ly^ilii^iiiiHffili^SSii^i^^^ilii^^ 



^i'^i-. 



5- ^ "^ -x"^ 



.,^ -^ri. 



'^J- V 



O^" 














'■>J- 


->> 




•tl" 


-:^ 


^^ 







^n\ 



■\#^ 



"^ '' >, . "" ^' -0' 



.0- 



-q^, "*«,A-^' ,#' 



^V . 



: .s^^'^ 









oV 






c- 









/ 










-,*e.; 




V y 




> 










% 








.#' 


^/> 



'A V 

,0o 



vO^ 



^v o_^..;V'--,.o^^.-v. -■.,,% '''-^;^\.o ^^.X-- 



^y- V^ 



v\^^ '^^^ \ 









,0' 



\^J^S J 



0-^ "^ 









V> ,^\^ 



^^.^ 



xV ./>„ 









,0 o 



\^ 



CO' 



\' 





















X'- 



V-- 



x^-' '^^ 






-Js- 









^ ^ ,: :~. » -p 











" 




■- 0' 






-H 


* 8 , \ 


.. /%/v 

^^:''^,^ 




.xV ., 








aV 



>0 o^ 



CO V- ^ >• V 









V -<^ A'' "- ~^ v'^'J-— ' T S 












* <■■ V. ^ .^. A*- - -T^ 







'>' 


..\^' ^ 






<^ 


. ^b- -, 






^f 


■%. 




^ 




'•^ , 


^ <) a \ 


■* v\ 




'"^'^ ' '. 




.#' 


V '' "^ ■■ ,; ^'';- 


"^.- v^ 


,\ 




'. -^o^- 


\°°.. 


■^ 










:^ "^ 


o- 


-b 






^ <> fi 


"^'';- 


y 


' ' '" ■^^^ ^ '^ ^ , 


^ ' '^ / 


c» 




V' . ^ ,-, '- 






%. 


/ 






•s^ 


"% 




* <iV 






-\- 








■ o 




^ 




->, 






iQ 


•o- , • 


■.: ^ 


" n -^^ 


O 


*^' .-^ 


., .--K? 


-, V <.- 


■"o 0^- 


~ 




" ^ "^ v^ 


,^^ -c> 






xO o^ 


^>- ... 






r 






A 









*?. A / 



American ]l^imvml ^eriesi 

GENERAL EDITOR 

CHARLES H. HASKINS 

Pfofessor of History in Harvard University 



if 



EUROPE SINCE 1815 



BY 



CHARLES DOWNER HAZEN 

PR0FE6S0R OP HISTORY IN SMITH COLLEGE 



WITH FOURTEEN COLORED MAPS 




NEW YORK 
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

1910 



'9 



Copyright, 1910, 

BY 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 



©CIA285779 



PREFACE 

The purpose of this book is the presentation of the history 
of Europe since the downfall of Napoleon. Needless to say, 
only the broader lines of the evolution of so crowded a cen- 
tury can be traced in a single volume. I have, moreover, 
omitted many subjects, frequently described, in order to 
give a fuller treatment to those which, in my opinion, are 
more important. I have endeavored to explain the internal 
development of the various nations, and their external rela- 
tions in so far as these have been vital or deeply formative. 
I have also attempted to preserve a reasonable balance be- 
tween the different periods of the century and to avoid the 
danger of over-emphasis. 

The great tendencies of the century, the transference of 
power from oligarchies to democracies, the building up of 
nations like Germany and Italy and the Balkan states which 
was the product of long trains of causes, of sharp, decisive 
events, and of the potent activity of commanding person- 
alities, tlie gradual expansion of Europe and its insistent 
and growing pressure upon the world outside, shown in so 
many ways and so strikingly in this age of imperialism and 
world-politics, the increasing consciousness in our day of the 
urgency of economic and social problems, all these and other 
tendencies will, I trust, emerge from the following pages, 
with clearness and in just proportion. 

The problem of arranging material covering so many dif- 
ferent countries and presenting such varieties of circumstance 
and condition is one of the greatest difficulty. It arises from 
the fact that Europe is only a geographical expression. The 
author is not writing the history of a single people but of a 
dozen different peoples, which, having much in common, are 



vi PREFACE 

nevertheless very dissimilar in character, in problems, in 
stages of development, and in mental outlook. If he adopts 
the chronological order (and events certainly occurred in 
chronological sequence), if he attempts to keep the histories 
of a dozen different countries moving along together as they 
did in fact, he must pass continually from one to the other 
and his narrative inevitably becomes jerky, spasmodic, and 
confused. If on the other hand he takes each nation in 
turn, recounting its history from starting point to point of 
conclusion, he gains the great advantage of continuity, which 
begets understanding, but he writes a dozen histories, not one. 
He therefore compromises, perforce, with his intractable 
problem and works out a method of presentation of whose 
vulnerability he is probably quite as acutely conscious as 
any reader could be. My method has been to bring down 
more or less together the histories of those countries which 
have so intimately and significantly interacted upon each 
other, Austria, Prussia, France, and Italy, that the evolution 
of one cannot be, even approximately, understood apart from 
a knowledge of the current evolution of the others. I then 
return to my starting point, 1815, and trace the histories of 
England, Russia, Turkey and the lesser states separately, 
gaining the advantage of being able to show their continuous 
development. I hope that this method has at least the merit 
of rendering clearness of exposition possible. 

My narrative is based to some extent upon an examination 
of the sources, although, considering the vast extent of the 
original material available, this has been necessarily com- 
paratively limited. It is based chiefly, as probably any 
synthetic work covering so large a field must be, on the 
elaborate general histories of different periods or countries, 
on biographies, and on the special monographic literature. 
These are indicated in the bibliography at the end of the 
volum.e which I have attempted to make critical and descrip- 
tive rather than extensive. It has been impossible for me to 
employ footnotes freely and consequently I am restricted to 



PREFACE vii 

a general recognition of my great and constant indebtedness 
to the authorities used, a recognition which I wish to make as 
explicit and as grateful as it must be brief and comprehensive. 

C. D. H. 

NOKTHAMPTOX, MASSACHUSETTS, 

December 31, 1909. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

The Overthrow of Napoleon — The Great Coalition — The Problem 
of the Government of France^Treaty of Paris — Congress of 
Vienna — The Great Powers — The Division of the Spoils — Prin- 
ciple of Legitimacy — Demands of Russia — Demands of Prussia 
— The Fate of Poland and Saxony — Russian Acquisitions — 
Austrian Acquisitions — English Acquisitions — The Future of 
Italy — Italy a " Geographical Expression " — Criticism of the 
Congress — The Indignation of the Germans — Defiance of the 
Principle of Nationalitv — Denunciation of the Slave Trade — 
The " Hundred Days "—Second Treaty of Paris— The Holy Alli- 
ance — The Allies Promise Aid to Each Other — Unusual Charac- 
ter of the Alliance — Quadruple Alliance — Precautions Against 
France — The Concert of Powers — Quadruple Alliance and Met- 
ternich — Alexander I — Francis I of Austria — Metternich — His 
Diplomatic Skill — His Self-esteem — His Historical Importance — 
Doctrine of Immobility 



CHAPTER II 

REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

Lack of Unity in the Austrian Empire — Racial Differences — Not a 
German Empire — Policy of Francis I and Metternich — Austria 
a Land of the Old Regime — Local Government — The Police 
System— The System of Espionage — AppUcation of the Met- 
ternich System in Other Countries — Germany a Loose Confedera- 
tion — Varieties of States — The Diet — Its Powers not Defined — 
Germany not a Nation — The International Character of the Con- 
federation — Dissatisfaction of the Germans with This System- 
Why the Problem of German Unity was so Difficult— The States- 
right Feeling — Dualism the Outcome of German Evolution — 
The Demand for Constitutional Government — Metternich's Suc- 
cessful Opposition — Various Forms of Government in the Dif- 
ferent German States — Popular Sovereignty Nowhere Recog- 
nized — Constitutions Granted in Certain States — The King of 
Prussia Becomes Reactionary — Indignation of the Liberals — 
Ferment in the Universities — The Wartburg Festival — The Mur- 
der of Kotzebue — The Holy Alliance Converted into an Engine 
of Oppression — The Carlsbad Decrees — Provision Concerning 
Constitutional Government — Control of the Universities — Pro- 
hibition of Student Societies — The Censorship of the Press — 
Reaction the Order of the Day in Germany — The Persecution of 
Liberals — Prussia a Docile Follower of Austria .... 23 



X CONTENTS 

CHAPTER III 

FAGB 

REACTION AND REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

Spain — Spanish Constitution of 1812 — Ferdinand VII, Abolition of 
the Constitution — Persecution of Liberals — Inefficiency of the 
Government — Disintegration of the Spanish Empire — Neglect 
of the Army and the Navy— Revolution of 1820-1823— Italy- 
Napoleon on Italian Unity — Significance of Napoleon's Activity 
in Italy — The Awakening of Italy — The Decision of the Congress 
of Vienna — The Ten Italian States — The Dominance of Austria — 
The Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom — The Kingdom of Sardinia — 
The States of the Church— The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies— Uni- 
versal Reaction — The Carbonari — The Revolution of 1820 in 
Naples — The Powers Prepare to Suppress These Revolutions — 
The Doctrine of the Right of Intervention — The Congress of 
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818— The Congress of Troppau, 1820— The 
Congress of Laibach, 1821 — The Revolution in Piedmont — 
Reasons for the Failure of the Movements of 1820 — The Congress 
of Verona, 1822 — Reaction in Spain — The Triumph of the Holy 
Alliance — The Monroe Doctrine — The " Metternich System " 
Checked 45 



CHAPTER IV 

FRANCE UNDER THE RESTORATION 

The Profound EflFects of the French Revolution — The Restoration 
of the Bourbons not a Restoration of the Old Regime — The 
Constitutional Charter — The Form of Government — The Re- 
stricted Suffrage — Provisions Concerning Civil Rights — Recog- 
nition of the Work of the Revolution— Louis XVIII— The Diffi- 
culties of His Situation— The Ultras— The Center Parties— The 
White Terror— Louis XVIII Checks the Ultras— A Period of 
Moderate Liberalism — The Liberation of the Territory — Re- 
organization of the Army — The Electoral System — The Press 
Law of 1819 — Activity of the Ultras — Election of Gregoire — 
Murder of the Duke of Berry— Electoral Law of 1820 — The 
Double Vote — The Censorship Restored — French Invasion of 
Spain— Triumph of the Ultras— Death of Louis XVIII— 
Charles X — Policy of the New King — The Nobles Indemnified 
for Property Confiscated During the RevoJiition — Method 
of Paying the Indemnity — The Law Against Sacrilege — 
Clerical Reaction — Attempt to Re-establish the Principle of 
Primogeniture — Attempt to Destroy the Freedom of the Press — 
Disbandment of the National Guard — Attempt to Stamp Out 
the Opposition in Parliament — The Martignac Ministry — The 
Polignac Ministry — Widespread Opposition to the Ministry — 
Conflict Between Charles X and the Chamber of Deputies— The 
Ordinances of July — Charles X's Interpretation of the Charter 
—The King's Mistaken Judgment — The Opposition of the Liberal 
Editors of Paris — The July Revolution — The Character of the 
Fighting — The Ordinances Withdrawn — The Candidacy of Louis 
Philippe — Abdication of Charles X — Louis Philippe King — The 
End of the Restoration 66 



CONTENTS xi 

CHAPTER V 

PAGE 

REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 

Wide-spread Influence of the July Revolution — Powerlessness of the 
Holy Alliance — The Congress of Vienna and the Kingdom of 
the Netherlands — A Union of Two Fundamentally Dissimilar 
Peoples — The Spirit of Nationality Awakened Among the Bel- 
gians — DiflBculties in the Drafting of the Constitution — Friction 
Between the Belgians and the Dutch — The Influence of the July 
Revolution — The Belgians Declare Their Independence — Inter- 
vention of the Holy Allies Prevented by Events in Poland — 
Recognition of the Kingdom of Belgium — The Restoration of 
the Kingdom of Poland in 1815 — Alexander I Grants a Constitu- 
tion to Poland — Friction Between the Poles and the Russians — 
Influence of the July Revolution — The Polish Expectation of 
Foreign Aid Disappointed — The Failure of the Insurrection — 
Italy After the Revolutions of 1820 — Revolutionary Movements 
in 1831 — The Italians Receive No Help from France — Austrian 
Intervention — The Results of the Insurrections — Revolution in 
Germany — New Measures of Repression — Metternich Supreme in 
Germany . 100 



CHAPTER VI 

THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

The Career of Louis Philippe — His Liberalism — His Legal Title 
to the Throne — The Constitution Revised — The Franchise 
Lowered— The Character of the July Monarchy — Insecurity of 
the New Regime — A Period of Storm and Stress — -The Progressive 
Party — The Conservative Party — Popular Unrest — Casimir- 
Perier and the Policy of the Conservatives — Foreign Policy — Op- 
position Parties — The Legitimists — The Duchess of Berry — Re- 
publican Insurrections — Vigorous Measures of the Government — 
The Prosecution of Journalists — Attempts upon the Life of 
Louis Philippe — The September Laws, 1835 — The Press Law — 
The Bonapartists — Louis Philippe and the Napoleonic Legend — 
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte — The Second Funeral of Napoleon 
I — The Boulogne Fiasco — Ministerial Instability — Rivalry of 
Thiers and Guizot — Louis Philippe Intends to Rule — Personal 
Government — Thiers and the Eastern Question — Resignation of 
Thiers — Guizot, Prime Minister — Guizot's Political Principles — 
The Government Scrupulously Parliamentary — How the Gov- 
ernment Obtained Its Majorities — The Manipulation of the 
Voters — The Manipulation of the Deputies— The Servility 
of Parliament — Demand for Electoral and Parliamentary Re- 
form — Rigid Opposition of the Guizot Ministry — Rise of Radi- 
calism — Economic Distress — Introduction of the Factory System 
— Condition of the Working Classes — Growth of Socialism — 
Louis Blanc — Wide-spread Opposition to the Policy of the Gov- 
ernment — Fusion of the Opposing Parties — The " Reform 
Banquets " — Emergence of Lamartine — The People Support the 
Demand for Reform — The Revolution of February, 1848 — 
Resignation of Guizot — The Overthrow of Louis Philippe — The 
Rise of the Second Republic 114 



xii CONTENTS 

CHAPTER VII 

CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN TWO REVOLUTIONS ^^^^ 

The February Revolution a Signal for Other Revolutions — The 
General Character of the Period between 1830 and 1848 — Evolu- 
tion of Prussia — Great Intellectual Activity — The Achievement 
of Prussian Unity Imperative — Revision of the System of Tax- 
ation—The Question of the Tariff— The ZoUverein— The Ad- 
vantages of the ZoUverein — Death of Frederick William III — 
Frederick William IV — The Demand for a Parliament — The Let- 
ter Patent of February 3, 1847 — Popular Dissatisfaction — Con- 
flict Between Frederick William IV and the United Landtag — 
Austria not a Homogeneous State — Political Stagnation — The In- 
dustrial Revolution — The Development of Nationalities Within 
the Empire — Bohemia — Hungary — The Hungarian Constitution — 
The Importance of the Nobility — The Prevalence of Feudalism — 
Szechenyi and Reform — The Policy of the Diet — The Language 
Question — Rise of a Radical Party— ^Louis Kossuth — The De- 
mands of the Hungarians in 1847 — Italy After 1831 — Importance 
of a Group of Writers — Joseph Mazzini — His Intense Patriotism 
— His Imprisonment — Founder of " Young Italy " — The Methods 
of the Society — The Aims of the Society — Unity, a Practicable 
Ideal — Mazzini as a Conspirator — Gioberti — D'Azeglio — Balbo — 
The Risorgimento— Pius IX, Pope, 1846-1878— Charles Albert, 
King of Piedmont — Italy on the Brink of Revolution . . . 145 

CHAPTER VIII 

CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 

The Great Mid-century Uprising — Vienna the Storm-center — The 
Decisive Intervention of Hungary — The Overthrow of Metter- 
nich — The March Laws — Hungary Practically Independent — 
Revolution in Bohemia — Revolution in the Austrian Provinces 
— Revolution in Lombardy-Venetia — Italy renounces Austrian 
Control — Revolution in Germany — The National Movement — The 
Parliament of Frankfort — The March Revolutions Everywhere 
Triumphant — Austria Begins the Work of Restoration — Bohemia 
Conquered — Italy Partially Conquered — Civil Dissension Within 
Hungary — The Croatians Rise Against the Magyars — Austria 
Exploits the Situation — Radical Party in Hungary Seizes Control 
— Abdication of the Emperor of Austria — Accession of Francis 
Joseph I — Hungary Declares Francis Joseph a Usurper — War 
Between Austria and Hungary — Hungarian Declaration of In- 
dependence, April 14, 1849 — Hungary "Conquered— The Conquest 
of Italy Completed — Abdication of Charles Albert — Overthrow 
of the Roman Republic — Fall of Venice — The Parliament of 
Frankfort — Leadership in Germany Offered to the King of 
Prussia — Rejection of the Work of the Frankfort Parliament — 
The "Humiliation of Olmiitz " — Results of the Revolutions of 
1848 169 

CHAPTER IX 

THE SECOND REPUBLIC AND THE FOUNDING OF 
THE SECOND EMPIRE 

The French Revolution of 1848 — Stages in the History of the 
Second Republic — Two Elements in the Provisional Government — 



CONTENTS xiii 

PAGE 

The Republicans — The Socialists — Louis Blanc's Theories — 
Achievements of the Provisional Government — The Question of 
the Flag— The Labor Commission — Its Impotence — The National 
Workshops — Their Rapid Growth— The National Constituent As- 
sembly — The Assembly Hostile to the Socialists — Abolition of 
the National Workshops — The June Days — A Military Dictator- 
ship — Growing Opposition to the Republic — An Unpopular Fi- 
nancial Measure — The Framing of the Constitution — The Powers 
of the Executive — Discussion Concerning the Presidency — The 
President to be Chosen by Universal Suifrage — The Voters to be 
Untrammeled in Their Choice — Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's 
Opportunity — His Previous Career — A Member of the Constit- 
uent Assembly — A Candidate for the Presidency — Causes of His 
Triumph — Louis Napoleon Elected President, Dec. 10, 1848 — 
The Legislative Assembly — President and Assembly Opposed to 
the Constitution — They Combine to Crush the Republicans — The 
Franchise Law of 1850 — President Demands the Revision of the 
Constitution — The Coup d'Etat— Events of December 2d — The 
"Massacre of the Boulevards" — The Plebiscite — Napoleon III, 
Emperor, Dec. 2, 1852 — The Programme of the New Emperor — 
The Political Institutions of the Empire — Parliament Carefully 
Muffled — Its Legislative Power Limited — The Senate — The Coun- 
cil of State — The Emperor — The Press Shackled — The Empire 
Both Repressive and Progressive — The Emperor's Activities — 
Economic Development — Paris Beautified — General Prosperity 
— The Congress of Paris, 1856 — The Emperor's Policy of Peace 
—The Italian War of 1859 187 



CHAPTER X 

CAVOUR AND THE CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF 

ITALY 

Reaction in Italy After 1848 — Victor Emmanuel II — Piedmont a 
Constitutional State — Count Cavour — His Interest in Political 
and Economic Questions — Becomes an Editor — Cavour Prime 
Minister, 1852 — Policy of Economic Development — Cavour Seeks 
a Military Ally — Why Piedmont Participated in the Crimean 
War — Cavour at the Congress of Paris — Discussion of the Italian 
Question — Moral Victory for Cavour — Army Strengthened — 
Founding of the National Society — Cavour and Napoleon — The 
Interview of Plombieres — A Conspiracy to Bring About a War — 
The Conditions Agreed upon — Difficulties and Dangers of 
Cavour's Position — Cavour's Diplomacy — The Austro-Sardinian 
War — The Campaign of 1859 — The Preliminaries of Villafranca 
— Reasons for Napoleon's Action — Austria Eager for Peace — 
Resignation of Cavour — Piedmont Acquires Lombardy — Central 
Italy — Impossibility of Restoring the Old Order — England's Par- 
ticipation in Affairs — Cavour Returns to Office — Annexations to 
Piedmont — Cession of Savoy and Nice by the Treaty of Turin, 
March 24, 1860 — Effect upon Napoleon III — The Sicilian Insur- 
rection — Giuseppe Garibaldi — The Defense of Rome— Leader of 
" The Hunters of the Alps" — Determines to go to Sicily — Cavour's 
Dilemma — The Expedition of " The Thousand " — Conquest of the 
Kingdom of Naples — Garibaldi Plans to Attack Rome — Inter- 



xiv CONTENTS 

PAGE 

vention of Piedmont — The Annexation of the Kingdom of 
Naples and of Umbria and the Marches — Siege of Gaeta — The 
Kingdom of Italy Proclaimed — The Kingdom Still Incomplete — 
The Question of Rome — Death of Cavour 215 



CHAPTER XI 

BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

Reaction in Germany After 1849 — Prussia a Constitutional but not 
a Parliamentary State — The Police System — Control of the 
Press — The Privileged Class — Economic Transformation — Indus- 
trial Development — Rise of a Wealthy Middle Class — Intellec- 
tual Activity — Influence of Events in Italy upon German 
Thought — The National Union — William I — The Prussian Army 
— The Obligatory Service not Enforced — Army Reform — Op- 
position of the Chamber — Determination of William I — Otto von 
Bismarck-Schonhausen — Bismarck's Previous Career — Bismarck's 
Political Opinions — His Attitude Toward Parliamentary Institu- 
tions—His Hatred of Democracy— Bismarck in the Diet — The 
Period of Conflict — Army Reform Carried Through — " Blood 
and Iron " Policy — Prussia's Three Wars — The Schleswig- 
Holstein Question — Action of Denmark Concerning Schlesvv^ig 
— Bismarck's Handling of the Question — Prussia and Austria 
at War with Denmark— Treaty of Vienna, Oct. 1864— The 
Future of the Duchies — Friction Between Prussia and Aus- 
tria — Prussia Acquires Lauenburg by Purchase — The Meeting 
at Biarritz — Treaty of Alliance with Italy — Bismarck Pre- 
pares for a War with Austria — Bismarck Proposes a Reform 
of the Confederation — Prussia Withdraws from the Confedera- 
tion — The Austro-Prussian War — Hellmuth von Moltke — Prussia 
Conquers North Germany — The Battle of Koniggratz or Sadowa 
— Causes of Austria's Defeat — Results of the Austro-Prussian 
War — Annexations to Prussia — The North German Confedera- 
tion, 1867-1871— The Bundesrath— The Reichstag— Alliance with 
South German States — Consolidating the New System . . . 240 



CHAPTER XII 

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SECOND EMPIRE 

Disastrous Efi'ect of the Italian War upon Napoleon III — The 
War Approved only by the Democratic Party — Napoleon's Va- 
cillation — England Offended — Treaty of Commerce Offends 
Protectionists — Napoleon Turns to the Liberals — Powers of Par- 
liament Increased — Revival of Interest in Politics — Rise of a 
Republican Party — The Mexican Expedition — Napoleon's Pur- 
poses — Napoleon Overthrows the Mexican Republic — Disastrous 
Outcome of this Adventure — Intervention of the United States — 
Discomfiture of Napoleon III — Additional Concessions to Liberal- 
ism — The Right of Interpellation Granted — Dramatic Emergence 
of Leon Gambetta — Bitter Attacks upon Napoleon III — The 
Third Party— The Transformation of the Empire Completed — 
Popular Approval— The Plebiscite of May, 1870— Sudden Col- 
lapse of the Empire 272 



CONTENTS XV 

CHAPTER XIII 

PAGE 

THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

Napoleon's Unwise Adherence to His Doctrine of Nationalities — 
The Meeting at Biarritz — Napoleon's Failure to Use His Oppor- 
tunity in 1866— The Year 1866 a Turning Point in Modern His- 
tory — " Revenge for Sadowa "—Failure of Napoleon's Diplo- 
macy — Bismarck Regards a War with France as Inevitable — The 
Spanish Candidacy of Leopold of Hohenzollern — The Candidacy 
Withdrawn^ — Folly of the Duke of Gramont — The Ems Despatch 
— The War Party in Paris — France Declares War upon Prussia 
— South German States Join Prussia — France Isolated — The 
French Army — The Numerical Inferiority of the French — The 
Germans Invade France — The Battle of Sedan — The Fall of the 
Empire — The Government of National Defense — The Fall of 
Metz — The Siege of Paris — Election of a National Assembly — 
Thiers Chosen Chief of the Executive— Treaty of Frankfort- 
Fall of the Temporal Power — Completion of Italian Unification 
— Completion of German Unification 285 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

Growth of National Feeling in Germany Since 1815 — Constitution 
of the New German Empire — ^The Emperor— The Bundesrath — 
The Reichstag — A Confederation of Monarchical States — Reign 
of Emperor William I — Bismarck's Commanding Position — A 
Religious Conflict — Causes of the Kulturkampf — Formation of 
the Center Party — Dogma of Papal Infallibility — The Old 
Catholics— The Falk Laws— Conflict of Church and State— Bis- 
marck's Retreat — Financial and Industrial Questions — Adoption 
of the Policy of Protection — Its Advantage Proved by the His- 
tory of Other Nations — Germany Should Imitate the United 
States — The System Gradually Applied — The Growth of Social- 
ism—Alarm of the Ruling Classes — Attempts upon the Life of 
the Emperor — Severe Measures Against the Socialists — Their 
Failure — Continued Growth of the Socialist Party — The Imperial 
Government Undertakes Social Reform — Various Forms of In- 
surance Proposed — State Socialism— The Measures Carried — Bis- 
marck a Pioneer — Not Supported by the Socialists — The Begin- 
ning of a Colonial Empire — A Result of the Adoption of the 
Policy of Protection — Energetic Intervention in Africa — The 
German Colonies — -The Triple Alliance — Isolation of France — 
Austro-German Treaty of 1879 — Entrance of Italy into the 
Alliance — Death of William I — Accession of William II— The 
Resignation of Bismarck — The Anti-Socialist Policy Abandoned 
— Remarkable Expansion of German Industry — Germany a 
Naval Power — Continued Growth of Socialism — The Social 
Democratic Party Numerically the Largest — The Demand for 
Electoral Reform — The Demand for Parliamentary Reform — 
The Demand for Ministerial Responsibility — The Present Situa- 
tion 303 



xvi CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XV 

PAGE 

FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

The National Assembly — Paris and the Assembly Mutually Sus- 
picious — Versailles Declared the Capital — Distress of the Work- 
ing Classes — Revolutionary Elements — The Idea of the Commune 
— The National Guard — The Government of the Commune — The 
Commune and the National Assembly Clash — The Second Siege of 
Paris — The " Bloody Week " — The Government's Revenge — 
France at Peace — The Government of Thiers — The Rivet Law — 
The Cost of the " Terrible Year "—The Liberation of the Terri- 
tory — Reform in Local Government — Army Reform — The Ques- 
tion of the Permanent Form of Government — Thiers and the 
Republic — The Monarchist Parties— Resignation of Thiers — The 
Count of Chambord — Establishment of the Septennate — Assembly 
Reluctant to Frame a Constitution — The Assembly Active 
Against Republicans — Growth of the Republican Party — The 
Constitution of 1875— The Senate— The President— The Ministry 
— France a Parliamentary Republic — Dissolution of the National 
Assembly — The Republic and the Church — MacMahon's Con- 
ception of the Presidency — Victory of the Republicans — Resigna- 
tion of MacMahon— Grevy Chosen President — Republican Legis- 
lation — Creation of a National System of Education — Public 
Works — Revision of the Constitution — Colonial Policy — Increase 
of the National Debt — Death of Gambetta — Discontent with the 
Republic — Boulanger — The Republic Weathers the Crisis — The 
Dual Alliance— The Dreyfus Case — Dreyfus Degraded and Im- 
prisoned — Picquart — Zola Attempts to Reopen the Case — Speech 
of Cavaignac, Minister of War — Court of Cassation Orders a Re- 
trial of Dreyfus — Dreyfus Again Declared Guilty— Dreyfus 
Pardoned— Dreyfus Vindicated — Significance of the Case — 
Formation of the " Bloc " — Question of Church and State- 
Growth of Religious Orders — The Law of Associations — Reli- 
gious Orders Forbidden to Engage in Teaching — The Concordat 
of 1801 — Anti-clerical Legislation — The Clergy in the Dreyfus 
Affair — The Abrogation of the Concordat — Associations of Wor- 
ship — Opposition of Pius X — Law of Jan. 2, 1907 — Separa- 
tion of Church and State — The French Colonial Empire — Algeria 
— Other African Conquests — Cochin-China — Expansion Under the 
the Third Republic — Western Africa — Madagascar .... 329 

CHAPTER XVI 

THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

Difficulties Confronting the New Kingdom — Piedmont Alone Ac- 
customed to Constitutional Government — The Constitution — The 
Question of the Papacy — The Law of Papal Guarantees — The 
Curia Romana — The " Prisoner of the Vatican " — Death of Vic- 
tor Emmanuel II — The Educational Problem — Extension of the 
Suffrage — The Triple Alliance — Francesco Crispi — Ambitious 
Military and Colonial Policy — The Resultant Distress — Policy of 
Repression — War with Abyssinia — Assassination of Humbert I 
— Victor Emmanuel III — Industrial Expansion — Advent of the 
Age of Electricity — Increase of the Population — Problem of 
Emigration — Italia Rediviva! 376 



CONTENTS xvii 

CHAPTER XVII 

PAGE 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

Austria's Punishment of Hungary — Failure of the War in Italy — 
Francis Joseph Reverses His Policy — Federalism or Centraliza- 
tion? — Austria Becomes a Constitutional State — Hungary Re- 
fuses to Co-operate — Reasons for Her Refusal— The Hungarians 
Assert Their " Historic Rights " — And Demand tlie Restoration 
of Their Constitution — A Deadlock — Francis Joseph Yields — 
The Compromise of 1867 — The Dual Monarchy— The Delega- 
tions — The Compromise Satisfactory Only to the Dominant 
Races — Constitution of Austria — Constitution of Hungary — 
The Dominant Races — Divisive Effect of the Principle 
of Nationality in Austria-Hungary — Austria Since 1867 
— Liberal Legislation — Demands of the Czechs — The Em- 
peror Prepares to Concede Them — Opposition of Germans 
and Magyars — Triumph of Dualism — Electoral Reform — The 
Taaffe Ministry — The Slavs Favored — Growth of Radical Parties 
— Division Among the Czechs — Electoral Reform — Universal 
Suffrage — Hungary Since 1867 — The Magyars — The Croatians — 
The Policy of Magyarization — Race Questions — Struggle over the 
Question of Language — Territorial Gains and Losses . . . 388 



CHAPTER XVIII 

ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

England in 1815 — The Industrial Revolution — A New Motive Force 
— The Steam Engine — The Industrial Primacy of Great Britain- 
Advantages Derived from the Revolutionary and Napoleonic 
Wars — The Renown of Parliament — England a Land of the Old 
Regime — Commanding Position of the Nobility — The House of 
Commons — The System of Representation — The County Suffrage 
— Scotland — The Suffrage in Boroughs — Nomination Boroughs — 
Rotten Boroughs — Unrepresented Cities— Bribery — The Estab- 
lished Church— Dissenters — Abuses Within the Church — The 
People Neglected — Adam Smith — Jeremy Bentham — Effect of 
The French Revolution upon England — Economic Distress After 
1815 — Lack of Employment — The Demand for Reform — William 
Cobbett — Parliamentary Reform — Popular Disturbances — Suspen- 
sion of Habeas Corpus — The Massacre of Peterloo — The Six Acts 
— Death of George HI — The Dawn of an Era of Reform — De- 
fiance of the Holy Alliance — Economic Reforms — Tlie Penal 
Code — Reformed by Sir Robert Peel — Religious Inequality — The 
Religious Disabilities of Dissenters — Repeal of the Test and 
Corporation Acts — Catholic Disabilities— Catholic Emancipation 
— Daniel O'Connell — O'Connell Elected to Parliament — Emanci- 
pation Carried — The Restriction of the Suffrage in Ireland — 
Tory Opposition to the Reform of Parliament — Influence of the 
French Revolution of 1830 — The Duke of Wellington on Reform 
—Fall of the Tory Ministry— The First Reform Bill— Provisions 
— Lord John Russell's Speech — Sir Robert Inglis's Speech — Rep- 
resentation Never Better — Hunt's Speech — Sir Robert Peel's 
Criticism — Macaulay on the Bill— Ministry Defeated, Parliament 
Dissolved — Second Reform Bill — Defeated by the House of Lords 



xviii CONTENTS 

PAGH 

—Third Reform Bill— The Bill Passed— Redistribution of Seats 
— The County Franchise — The Borough Franchise — Not a Demo- 
cratic Reform 406 

CHAPTER XIX 

ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO GREAT REFORMS (1832-1867) 

An Era of Whig Government — Slavery in the Colonies — Abolition 
of Slavery — Child Labor — Previous Attacks Upon the System — 
The System Defended— The Factory Act, 1833— The Decay of 
Local Self-government — The Necessity for Reform — Municipal 
Governments Notoriously Corrupt — The Reform of Municipal 
Government — Accession of Queen Victoria — Her Political Edu- 
cation — Hanover — The Radicals and the Reform Bill — The Radi- 
cals Agitate for Further Reform— The People's Charter — Char- 
acter of the Chartist Agitation — The Lack of Able Leadership — 
The Petition of 1848— The Significance of the Movement— Eng- 
land's Policy of Protection — The Corn Laws — Huskisson's Re- 
forms — Sir Robert Peel's Ministry — The Anti-Corn-Law League 
— The Arguments for Free Trade — The Irish Famine — Repeal of 
the Corn Laws — Remaining Protective Duties Gradually Removed 
— Labor Legislation — Regulation of Labor in Mines — Factory 
Laws — Morley on the Labor Code — Growth of Trades-Unions — 
The Growth of Collectivism — Jews Admitted to the House of 
Commons — Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer — Postal Sav- 
ings Banks — State Insurance — Industrial and Scientific Progress 
— The Demand for a Wider Suffrage — Effect of the Civil War — 
Gladstone Introduces a Reform Bill — The Bill Defeated — Re- 
form Carried by Disraeli — Provisions of the Bill — Redistribution 
of Seats 439 

CHAPTER XX 

ENGLAND UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

The Great Ministry — William Ewart Gladstone — Entrance into 
Parliament — Leader of the Liberal Party — Gladstone's First 
Ministry, 1868-1874 — Dominance of Irish Questions — Ireland 
a Conquered Country— The Agrarian Question — The Reli- 
gious Question — The Political Question — Catholic Emancipation 
— The Repeal Movement — The Irish Famine — Decline of the 
Population — The Fenian Movement — The Irish Church — The 
Tithe War — Disestablishment of the Irish Church — System of 
Land Tenure — The Land Owned by a Few — Tenants-at-will 
— No Compensation for Improvements — Industry and Thrift 
Penalized — Misery of the Peasantry — Deeds of Violence 
—The Ulster System— Land Act of 1870— The Bright Clauses— 
The Bill Denounced as Revolutionary — The Land Act a Disap- 
pointment — Its Principles Important — Educational Reform — 
Church Schools — The System Inadequate — The Question Becomes 
Urgent— The Forster Education Act of 1870— Church Schools In- 
corporated in the System — Board Schools Established — The Ques- 
tion of Religious Instruction — The Conscience Clause — The 
Cowper-Temple Amendment — Education Neither Free, nor Com- 



CONTENTS xix 

PAGE 

pulsory, nor Secular — Army Reform — Introduction of Short 
Service — Abolition of the Purchase System — Civil Service Reform 
— The Universities Thrown Open — Introduction of the Ballot — 
Reasons for Secret Voting — Gladstone's Waning Popularity — 
The Irish University Bill — The Religious Difliculty — General 
Dissatisfaction with the Bill — Unpopularity of Gladstone's For- 
eign Policy— The Alabama Award — The Elections of 1874 — The 
Disraeli Ministry — Imperialism — Importance of the Colonies 
Emphasized — Purchase of the Suez Canal Shares — The Queen 
Proclaimed Empress of India — Re-opening of the Eastern Ques- 
tion — Fall of the Disraeli Ministry — The Second Gladstone Min- 
istry, 1880-1885— Failure of Land Act of 1870— The Land Act of 
1881 — Rents to be Judicially Determined — Denounced as Con- 
fiscation of Property— The Reform Bill of 1884--The County 
Franchise Widened — Redistribution of Seats — Single Member 
Districts — Various Qualifications for Voting 465 

CHAPTER XXI 

ENGLAND SINCE 1886 

The First Salisbury Administration — The Home Rule Movement — 
Charles Stuart Parnell — Adoption of the Policy of Obstruction 
— Gladstone Unable to Pacify Ireland — The Third Gladstone 
Ministry — The Home Rulers Hold the Balance of Power — Home 
Rule or Coercion? — Introduction of the Home Rule Bill— Shall 
the Irish Sit in Westminster? — Land Purchase Bill — Opposition 
to the Bills — The Union in Danger! — English Dislike of the 
Irish — John Bright's Opposition— Disruption of the Liberal 
Party — The Bill Defeated — The Conservatives Returned to Power 
—The Second Salisbury Ministry, 1886-1892— The Policy of 
Coercion — Land Purchase Act— County Government Reformed 
— Social Legislation — Increase of the Navy — The Fourth Glad- 
stone Ministry, 1892-1894— The Second Home Rule Bill— Funda- 
mental Objections — Bitterness of the Opposition — Passed by the 
Commons, Defeated by the Lords — Parish Councils Bill — Resig- 
nation of Gladstone— The Rosebery Ministry — The Conservatives 
Returned to Power — The Third Salisbury Ministry — War in 
South Africa — Irish Local Government Act — Death of Queen 
Victoria — Education Act of 1902 — The Abolition of the School 
Boards — Decline of Illiteracy— The liberal Party in Power — Old 
Age Pensions Law — An Irish University 497 

CHAPTER XXII 

THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 

The Expansion of Europe — The Growth of Colonial Empires — Vast 
Growth of the British Empire Since 1815 — Overthrow of the 
Mahratta Confederacy — Annexation of the Punjab — The Indian 
Mutiny — Change in the Government of India — The Vast Popula- 
tion of India — The Population not Homogeneous — Annexation of 
Burma and Baluchistan — American Colonies — Upper and Lower 
Canada — Constitutional Difficulties in Upper Canada — In Lower 
Canada — The Colonists Desire Self-government — The Rebellion 



XX CONTENTS 

PAGE 

of 1837 — Lord Durham's Report — The Executive Irresponsible — 
Durham Proposes Ministerial Responsibility — Durham Favors 
Federation — Ministerial Responsibility Finally Introduced — 
Founding of Dominion of Canada, 1867 — British North America 
Act — The Dominion Parliament — Growth of the Dominion — The 
Canadian Pacific Railway — Australia — Early Explorations — The 
Voyages of Captain Cook — A Convict Colony — Abandoment of 
this System — The Discovery of Gold — The Six Australian 
Colonies — Reasons for Their Federation — Creation of the Aus- 
tralian Commonwealth — The Federal Parliament — New Zealand — 
Advanced Social Legislation — System of Taxation — Old Age 
Pensions — Africa — England Acquires Cape Colony — Friction 
with the Boers — The Great Trek — Founding of the Transvaal — 
The Transvaal Annexed to Great Britain — Majuba Hill — Policy 
of the Gladstone Administration — The Pretoria Convention — The 
London Convention — The Boers Desire Unqualified Independence 
— The Boers — The Uitlanders — The Jameson Raid — Sir Alfred 
Milner's Reports— The South African War — Victory of the 
English — Annexation of the Transvaal and the Orange Free 
Stat^-The Union of South Africa, 1909— The Far Flung British 
Empire— The Problem of Imperial Federation — The Increasing 
Importance of the Question — The DifiBculties in the Way — The 
Problem of Government — Commercial Union — Colonial Con- 
ferences — Confederations Within the Empire 518 



CHAPTER XXIII 

THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 

The Period of Discovery — Situation in 1815 — The French Conquest 
of Algeria — The Sources of the Nile — David Livingstone — Stanley 
— Stanley's Explorations of the Congo — Africa Appropriated by 
Europe — The Congo Free State — Its International Origin — The 
Berlin Conference — Leopold II and the Congo Free State — 
Criticism of Leopold's Administration — The Congo Free State 
Made a Colony of Belgium— Egypt — Meheraet Ali Founds a 
Semi-royal House — Ismail and the Rapid Growth of the Egyp- 
tian Debt — Intervention of England and France — Revolt of 
Arabi Pasha — English Expedition Crushes the Insurrec- 
tion — England Assumes the Position of " Adviser " — The 
English " Occupation " — Loss of the Soudan — Death of Gordon 
— Recovery of the Soudan 550 

CHAPTER XXIV 

SPAIN AND PORTUGAL SINCE 1823 

Spain — Revenge of Ferdinand VII after 1823 — " Subversive " Cries — 
Loss of the American Colonies— The Question of the Succession 
— The Pragmatic Sanction — Isabella Proclaimed Queen — The 
Carlist War— The Royal Statute, 1834— Disturbed Political Life 
—The Constitution of 1837— Isabella II Declared of Age— The 
Mexican Expedition — The Overthrow of Isabella II — The 
Regency of Marshal Serrano — Amadeo of Savoy Chosen King — 
Abdication of Amadeo — The Establishment of the Republic — The 



CONTENTS 



Causes of Its Fall — Alfonso XII Recognized as King — The 
Constitution of 1876— Death of Alfonso XII— The Spanish- 
American War — Loss of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines 
— Alfonso XIII Assumes Power — Portugal — Flight of the Royal 
Family to Brazil, 1807 — Portuguese Revolution of 1820 — Loss 
of Brazil — Donna Maria da Gloria — Death of Maria — Recent 
Events in Portugal 564 

CHAPTER XXV 

HOLLAND AND BELGIUM SINCE 1830 

Holland— The Fundamental Law of 1815— The Constitution of 1848 
— Extension of the Franchise — The Dutch Colonies — Belgium — 
The Reign of Leopold I— The Reign of Leopold II— The Suf- 
frage — Education 579 

CHAPTER XXVI 

SWITZERLAND 

The Constitution of 1815 — The Importance of the Cantons — The 
" Era of Regeneration " — The Sonderbund — The Constitution of 
1848 — The Federal Government — Powers of the Federal and 
Cantonal Government — The Chief Significance of Switzerland — 
Important Contributions to Democratic Government — The 
Landesgemeinde Cantons — The Referendum — The Initiative — 
Spread of the Referendum and the Initiative — -Proportional 
Representation — The Population of Switzerland — The Neu- 
trality of Switzerland 584 

CHAPTER XXVII 

THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 

Denmark Loses Norway — Consultative Assemblies — Constitution 
Granted — Schleswig-Holstein — Treaty of Vienna— Revision of 
the Constitution — Growth of Radicalism — Denmark's Colonies — 
Sweden and Norway — The Constitution of Eidsvold — Sweden and 
Norway Separate Nations Under tlie Same King — The Reign 
of Charles XIII— The Constitution of 1866— Friction Between 
Sweden and Norway — Abolition of Norwegian Nobility — Dis- 
solution of the Union — Treaty of Carlstad — Death of Oscar II — 
Suffrage in Norway 592 

CHAPTER XXVIII 

THE DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 

Decay of the Ottoman Empire — Turkey in Process of Dismember- 
ment — The Ruling Class — The Eastern Question — Treatment of 
Subject Peoples — The Revolt of the Servians — The Condition of 
the Greeks — Intellectual Revival— The Hetairia Philike — The 
Greek War of Independence — The Ferocity of the Conflict — Fac- 



xxii CONTENTS 

PAGE 

tional Quarrels Among the Greeks — Foreign Intervention — Why 
England Intervened — Why Russia Intervened — Why France 
Intervened — Treaty of London — The Battle of Navarino — War 
Between Russia and Turkey — Creation of the Kingdom of Greece 
— The Principalities — Ambitions of Nicholas I — The Holy Places 
— War Between Russia and Turkey — Coalition Against Russia — 
Piedmont Joins the Coalition — Invasion of the Crimea — The 
Siege of Sebastopol — Fall of Sebastopol — Treaty of Paris — 
Turkey Admitted to the European Concert — Results of the 
Crimean War — Moldavia-Wallachia — The Roumanians and the 
Crimean War — The Union of the Principalities — Couza — 
Charles I of Roumania — Reopening of the Eastern Question — 
The Insurrection of Herzegovina — Accession of Abdul Hamid II 
— The Bulgarian Atrocities — Gladstone's Denunciation of the 
Turks — Servia and Montenegro Declare War — Russia Declares 
War — The Siege of Plevna— Treaty of San Stefano — Opposition 
to the Treaty — England Demands Its Revision — The Congress of 
Berlin — Independence of Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania — 
Union of the Two Bulgarias — Macedonia— Bulgaria since 1878 — 
Alexander of Battenberg — Friction Between the Bulgarians and 
the Russians — Breach of the Treaty of Berlin— Servia Attacks 
Bulgaria, Nov. 1885 — Abdication of Prince Alexander — Ferdi- 
nand of Saxe-Coburg — Dictatorship of Stambuloff — Murder of 
Stambuloff — Roumania and Servia since 1878 — Roumania Pro- 
claimed a Kingdom — Agrarian Disturbances — Greece since 1833 
— Reign of Otto I — Overthrow of Otto— The Ionian Islands — 
Annexation of Thessaly^Aspirations of the Balkan States — 
Revolution in Turkey— The Young Turks — Revolution of July, 
1908 — Restoration of the Constitution — Apparent Unanimity of 
this Movement — A Modernized Turkey — Attitude of Foreign 
Powers — Austria-Hungary Annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina — 
Bulgaria Declares Her Independence — The Powers Do Not 
Prevent These Breaches of the Berlin Treaty — Servia — Opening 
of the Turkish Parliament — The Counter-revolution of April, 
1909 — The Young Turks Regain Control — Deposition of Abdul 
Hamid II — Accession of Mohammed V 601 



CHAPTER XXIX 

RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

The Reign of Alexander I — Russian Conquests — The Nobility — The 
Peasantry — Alexander I — The Corruption of the Government — 
Poland— Alexander's Progressive Domestic Policy — Liberal For- 
eign Policy — Alexander Becomes Reactionary — Friction with the 
Poles — Death of Alexander I — The Reign of Nicholas I — Sys- 
tematic Repression — The Police System — The Censorship — Safe- 
guards Against the Ideas of Western Europe — A Brilliant 
Native Literature — Religious Persecution — The Evil of Serfdom 
— The Foreign Policy of Nicholas I — The Crimean War — The 
Humiliation of Russia — The Reign of Alexander II — Prevailing 
System of Land Tenure — The Mir — The Serfs — Serfdom Con- 
demned — The Crown Serfs — The Edict of Emancipation — The 
Land Problem — Division of the Land — State Aid — Disappoint- 
ment of the Peasantry — The Land Question not Solved — 
Establishment of the Zemstvos — Duties of the Zemstvos — Work 



CONTENTS xxiii 

PAGE 

Accomplished by the Zemstvos — Reform of the Judicial System 
— Educational Reform — End of the Era of Reform — 
The Polish Insurrection of 1863— The Aims of the Poles 
— The Poles Receive no Foreign Aid — The Deep-seated Divisions 
of the Poles — Russia Resolves to Crush the Polish Nobility— A 
Policy of Russification — EflFect of Polish Insurrection upon Alex- 
ander II — Alexander's Policy Becomes Retrogressive — Wide- 
spread Disillusionment — Rise of Nihilism — Persecution of the 
Nihilists — Bakounine — Nihilist Propaganda — A Policy of Terror- 
ism — Activity of the Police — Attempts upon the Emperor's Life 
— Alexander II and Loris Melikoff — Assassination of Alex- 
ander II — The Reign of Alexander III — Rigorous Policy of Re- 
action — Influence of Pobyedonostseff — Opposition to the Ideas of 
Western Europe — The Terrorists Hunted Down — Persecution of 
the Jews — Great Jewish Emigration — Progressive Features of 
the Reign of Alexander III — The Industrial Revolution — Sergius 
de Witte, Minister of Finance — Witte's Industrial Policy — Ex- 
tensive Railway Construction — Rise of Labor Problems — Rise of 
a Rich Bourgeoisie — The System of Privilege Menaced— Acces- 
sion of Nicholas II — Continuance of Autocratic Government — 
Increasing Disaffection — Wretched Condition of the Peasantry — 
Persecution of the " Intellectuals " — Attack upon the Finns — 
Abrogation of the Finnish Constitution — Despair of the Finns 
— Rise of the Far Eastern Question 645 



CHAPTER XXX 

THE FAR EAST 

England, France, and Russia, in Asia — Russian Expansion — Russia 
Seeks Access to the Sea — Conquest of Turkestan — China — The 
Civilization of China — The Government of China — Isolation of 
China — The Opium War — The Treaty Ports — Entrance of 
Various Powers into Commercial Relations — Treaties of Tien- 
tsin — Russia Annexes the Maritime Province — Japan — Descrip- 
tion of Japan — Japanese Civilization — The Mikado — The Shogun 
— The Daimios, the Samurai — Advent of Europeans — Japan 
Adopts a Policy of Isolation — Commodore Perry — Policy of Iso- 
lation Breaks Down — Overthrow of the Shogunate — The Mikado 
Recovers Power — Rapid Transformation of Japan — Abolition of 
the Old Regime — Adoption of European Institutions — Reform 
in Education — Japan Becomes a Constitutional State — Wars 
with China and Russia— Cause of the War with China — Treaty 
of Shimonoseki — Intervention of Russia, France, and Germany — 
Japan Relinquishes Port Arthur — Russian Entrance into Man- 
churia — German Aggression — Russia Secures Port Arthur — The 
" Boxer " Movement — Rescue of the Legations — Japan Indignant 
and Apprehensive — Russian Activity in Manchuria — Diplomatic 
Negotiations Concerning Manchuria^ — The Anglo-Japanese Treaty 
of 1902 — Japan Makes War upon Russia — Russo-Japanese War, 
1904-1905— Siege of Port Arthur— Mukden Captured by the 
Japanese — Destruction of the Russian Fleet, May 27th, 1905 — 
The Treaty of Portsmouth — Reaction of These Events upon 
China — China in Process of Transformation — China Promised 
a Constitution 681 



xxiv CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XXXI 

PAGE 

RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

Unpopularity in Russia of the War witli Japan — Open Expression 
of the Popular Discontent — Von Plehve's Iron Regime — Assassi- 
nation of Von Plehve — A Russian Defense of Assassination — 
Nicholas II Enters upon a More Liberal Path — Demands of the 
Liberals — Not Granted by the Tsar — Widespread Disorder — The 
Tsar Announces His Intentions — Popular Dissatisfaction and 
Continuance of Disorder — The Manifesto of August 19, 1905 — 
The Resort to the General Strike — The Manifesto of October, 
1905 — The Popular Demand for a Constituent Assembly Refused 
— The Government Makes Concessions to Finland — The Council 
of the Empire — The " Organic Laws " — Opening of the Duma, 
May 10, 1906 — Demands of the Duma — The Impotence of the 
Duma — The Duma Dissolved^Stolypin Appointed Chief Minister 
—The Viborg Manifesto— The Second Duma— The Tsar Alters 
the Electoral System — The Third Duma — The Autocracy Asserts 
Its Supreme Authority — The Transformation of the Mir — The 
Restoration of the Liberties of Finland — The Finnish Parlia- 
ment Altered — Renewed Troubles in Finland 706 

CHAPTER XXXII 

CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 

Literature — Music — Science — The Age of Steam — Rise of the Fac- 
tory System — Steam Navigation— The Invention of the Railroad 
— Importance of Railroads — Electricity — Standard of Living — 
Popular Discontent — Spread of Militarism — Cost of Modern 
Instruments of War — Nicholas II and the Limitation of 
Armaments — The First Peace Conference at the Hague — Ad- 
dress of M. de Staal — Address of General von Schwarzhoff — 
Address of M. Bourgeois — Establishment of a Permanent Court 
of Arbitration— The Twentieth Century Opens with Wars— The 
Second Peace Conference at the Hague — Work of the Con- 
ference — Cost of the Policy of Blood and Iron — Significance of 
the Peace Conferences — Arbitration 719 

BlBUOGRAPHY '^37 

Index ''^^S 



LIST OF MAPS 

PAGE 

Europe in 1815 Frontispiece 

DiSTRIBUTIOK OF RaCES IN AuSTEIA-HtJNGARY 25 

The German Confederation, 1815-1866 31 

Italy, 1815-1859 53 

The Unification of Italy 237 

The Growth of Prussia Since 1815 267 

The German Empire 305 

Colonial Possessions of the European Powers in 1815 . . . 523 

Africa. European Possessions in 1884 555 

Africa at the Present Time 561 

The Rise of the Balkan States 625 

Asia 703 

Contemporary Europe 721 

Colonial Possessions of the European Powers at the Present 

Time .............. 733 



CHAPTER I 
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

In March 1814, the enemies of Napoleon entered his cap- 
ital and bivouacked in triumph in the streets. The long 
struggle was over which had forced the Emperor back 
step by step from the plains of Russia through Germany, 
and was now sweeping him from France. Slowly the states 
of Europe had come to see that Napoleonic domination 
could be ended only by a generous and unswerving co- 
operation. Reading this useful lesson in the defeats of 
many fields, they had built up the Great Coalition, and 
finally the political system, fashioned with such a varied 
display of talent by the Emperor of the French, had given 
way beneath the impact of a united and resolute Europe. 

But the overthrow of Napoleon brought with it one of The over= 
the most complicated and difficult problems ever presented ^^^^'^ ^^ 
to statesmen and diplomatists. As all the nations of 
Europe had been profoundly affected by his enterprises, 
so all were profoundly affected by his fall. For nearly a 
quarter of a century the Continent had been harried by 
war, involving, directly or indirectly, all the powers, great 
and small. During that period boundaries had been changed 
and changed again with bewildering rapidity, old states 
had been destroyed, or cut up, or re-fashioned arbitrarily, 
several historic dynasties had been swept from their thrones, 
new legal and social systems had been established, largely 
after French models, and now the power that had led in 
this vast transformation had been humbled, its sovereign 
forced to strike arms. The destruction of the Napoleonic 
regime must be followed by the reconstruction of Europe, 
and it is with this difficult work that this history begins. 



% THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

This reconstruction was foreshadowed more or less clearly 
The Great in the treaties concluded with each other by the various 
Coalition. states as they entered the Great Coalition. Particularly 
important, however, were the Treaties of Paris and Vienna, 
to the making of which the powers now directed their 
attention. 

The first step, naturally, was to determine the future 
status of France. What should be done with this arch- 
enemy of Europe, now that the decision no longer lay with 
her but with her conquerors? What should be her future 
government, how large her territory, how severe her 
punishment.'' 
The problem The question of the government was the first to arise, 

^ 5 r aiifi had agitated the Allies for weeks before they entered 

ernment of , ^ ^ ^ •' 

Prance. Paris. There were several possible solutions. One was the 

continuance of Napoleon in power^ but only after having 
given sufficient guarantees for good behavior,^ Such an out- 
come was possible up to the middle of March, -^hen the 
conditions were presented him for the last time*. After he 
rejected them the Allies determined to have done with him 
forever^ There were the alternatives of a Regency for 
the little King of Rome, Napoleon's son, or of a successful 
French general as the new monarch, such as Bernadotte, 
now patronized by the Tsar. Some proposed to leave the 
whole matter to the French people, others to the determina- 
tion of the legislative chambers sitting in Paris. But as 
the discussion went on it gradually became clearer and clearer 
that it must be either Napoleon or Louis XVIII, the founder 
of the new royal family or the representative of the old. 
Bernadotte upon the throne would mean an undue influence 
of Russia in the affairs of France ; a Regencj^, an undue 
influence of Austria. An appeal to the French people, it 
was said, would let loose the Revolution once more, the 
very thing to which it was proposed to administer a definite 
and complete quietus. Gradually the cry of the French 
royalists in favor of Louis XVIII, " the legitimate king is 



TREATY OF PARIS 3 

there," to restore liim is imperatively necessary, " all else 
is intrigue," carried all before it, and the first step in the 
reconstruction of Europe was taken by the restoration of 
the Bourbons to the throne from which they had been ab- 
sent twenty-two years. 

On May 30, 1814, the Treaty of Paris was concluded Treaty of 
between the Allies on the one hand, and France, under Louis ^^^"s. 
XVIII, on the other. The boundaries of France were to 
be those of January 1, 1792, with slight additions to- 
ward the southeast in Savoy and in the north and north- 
east. On the other hand she was to relinquish all her con- 
quests beyond that line, which meant the extensive territories 
of the Netherlands, Italy, and parts of Germany, contain- 
ing in all a population of about thirty-two millions. The 
distribution of these territories was to be determined later, 
but it was already decided in principle, and so stated in 
the treaty, that the Netherlands should form a single state 
by the addition of the Belgian provinces to Holland, that 
Lombardy and Venetia should go to Austria, that the Re- 
public of Genoa should be incorporated in Sardinia, that 
the states of Germany should be united in a federation, that 
England should keep Malta and certain French colonies, 
returning others, that the German territories on the left 
bank of the Rhine, united to France since 1792, should be 
used for the enlargement of Holland, and as compensation 
to Prussia and other German states, and that Italy, out- 
side those regions that were to go to Austria, should be 
" composed of sovereign states." The definite elaboration 
of these intentions of the Allies was to be the work of a 
general international congress to be held, later in the year, 
in Vienna. 

The Congress of Vienna (September 1814- June 1815) was Congress of 
one of the most important diplomatic gatherings in the ^^^^^* 
history of Europe, by reason of the number, variety, and 
gravity of the questions presented and settled. The 
worldly brilliancy of its membership was remarkable even 



4 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

for an age accustomed to the theatrical diplomacy of 
Napoleon. There had rarely been seen before such an assem- 
blage as gathered in Vienna in the autumn of 1814. There 
were the emperors of Austria and Russia, the kings of 
Prussia, Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, Denmark, a multitude of 
lesser princes, and all the diplomats of Europe, of whom 
Metternich and Talleyrand were the most conspicuous. All 
the powers were represented except Turkey. So brilliant an 
array merited consideration, and partly because men needed 
relaxation after the tense and desperate years through which 
they had just passed, and partly to oil the wheels of diplo- 
macy, the court of Austria was most profuse and ingenious in 
its entertainment. Gaiety was the order of the day. It has 
been estimated that this Congress cost Austria about sixteen 
million dollars, spent for pageantry and amusement, and this 
when the state was virtually bankrupt. 

Slowly the work for which these men had come together 
was accomplished. The Congress of Vienna was not a con- 
gress in the ordinary meaning of the word. There was never 
any formal opening nor any general exchange of creden- 
tials. The representatives of the powers did not assemble 
day after day and deliberate upon the many problems press- 
ing for solution. There were no general sessions of all the 
powers. A large number of treaties were made between the 
various states and these were brought together in their es- 
sential features in the so-called Final Act of June 9, 1815, 
a kind of codification of the work of the Congress. Every- 
thing was arranged outside in special committees, and 
in the intimate interviews of sovereigns and diplomats. 
The Great Particularly important were the agreements of the Great 
Powers. Powers with each other, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Eng- 
land, the Allies who had conquered Napoleon, for their de- 
cisions were the main work of the Congress, and were forced 
upon the lesser states, which were simply expected to ac- 
cept what they could not themselves arrange. The dramatic 
interest of the Congress lies in the fact that these Great 



CONGRESS OF VIENNA 5 

Powers were not in harmony with each other, that their 
interests at times were so divergent, their ambitions so in- 
tense and conflicting, that at one moment war seemed likely 
to be the outcome of this meeting called to give peace to 
Europe. 

By the first Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, France The division 

had renounced all rights of sovereignty and protection over°^ . 

spoils, 
thirty-two millions of people. The diplomats of Vienna re- 
served the right to distribute these millions as they saw fit. 
This was the main work of the Congress as it was also the 
one which occasioned the greatest discord. The division of 
the spoils was a troublesome affair. The territories which 
France had renounced were widely scattered. They included 
what are now Belgium, certain Swiss cantons, large parts 
of Italy, extensive regions of Germany on both sides of the 
Rhine, and the Duchy of Warsaw, a creation of Napoleon 
out of former Poland. In addition to these. Saxony, an 
independent kingdom, which had remained faithful to 
Napoleon when the other German states had turned against 
him, and the Kingdom of Naples, of which Napoleon's 
brother-in-law, Murat, was still sovereign, were also con- 
sidered properly at the disposal of the powers, by reason 
of their connection with the fallen star. 

Certain questions had been decided in principle in the 
first Treaty of Paris, and needed now but to be carried out. 
The King of Piedmont, a refugee in his island of Sardinia 
during Napoleon's reign, was restored to his throne, and 
Genoa was given him that thus the state which borders 
France on the southeast might be the stronger to resist 
French aggression. Belgium, hitherto an Austrian posses- 
sion, was annexed to Holland and to th(i House of Orange, 
now restored, that this state might be a barrier in the 
north. It was understood that, in general, the doctrine of Principle 
legitimacy should be followed in determining the re-arrange- °^ legit- 
ment of Europe, that is, the principle that princes deprived ^°^^''^" 
of their thrones and driven from their states by Napoleon 



6 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

should receive them back again at the hands of collective 
Europe, though this principle was ignored whenever it so 
suited the interests of the Great Powers. Thus many of 
the German and Italian princes recovered their authority. 
But in the determination of the legitimacy of a govern- 
ment great elasticity prevailed. In general, those states 
which in Germany had been destroyed before 1803, and in 
Italy before 1798, were not restored. This alone meant 
that the map of Europe was far more simple than at the 
outbreak of the French Revolution. 
Demands of The Allies who had, after immense effort and sacrifice, 
Russia. overthrown Napoleon, felt that they should have their re- 

ward. The most powerful monarch at Vienna was Alex- 
ander I, Emperor of Russia, who, ever since Napoleon's 
disastrous invasion of Russia, had loomed large as a lib- 
erator of Europe. He now demanded that the Grand Duchy 
of Warsaw, whose government fell with Napoleon, be given 
to him. This state had been created out of Polish terri- 
tories which Prussia and Austria had seized in the partitions 
of that country at the close of the eighteenth century. 
Alexander wished to unite them with a part of Poland that 
had fallen to Russia, thus largely to restore the old Polish 
kingdom and nationality to which he intended to give a 
parliament and a constitution. There was to be no incor- 
poration of the restored kingdom in Russia, but the Russian 
emperor should be king of Poland. The union was to be 
merely personal. 
Bemands of Prussia was willing to give up her Polish provinces if 
Prussia. ^j^j^ gj^g could be indemnified elsewhere. She therefoi . 
fixed her attention upon the rich Kingdom of Saxony to 
the south, with the important cities of Dresden and Leipsic, 
as her compensation. To be sure there was a King of 
Saxony, and the doctrine of legitimacy would seem clearly 
to apply to him. But he had been faithful to his treaty 
obligations with Napoleon down to the battle of Leipsic, 
and thus, said Prussia, he had been a traitor to Germany, 



THE CLAIMS OF RUSSIA AND PRUSSIA 7 

and his state was lawful prize. Prussia preferred to re- 
ceive her increase of territory in Saxony rather than in 
the west along the Rhine, because Saxony was contiguous. 
She would thus consolidate and become more compact, 
whereas any possession she might acquire along the Rhine 
would be cut oiF from the rest of the kingdom by inter- 
vening states, and would only render more straggling and 
exposed her boundaries, already unsatisfactory. Moreover, 
she wished no common boundary with France, feeling that 
she would always be weak along the Rhine. 

Russia and Prussia supported each other's claims, the The fate of 

one to the Duchy of Warsaw, the other to the Kingdom of ^°^^"* ^^^ 

•nil r 1 Saxony. 

Saxony. But Austria and England were opposed to the 

demands of the northern courts, Austria not only because 
she was reluctant to give up her own Polish territory, her 
own part of the Duchy of Warsaw, but because she feared 
the power of Russia, and the growth of Prussia in north- 
ern and central Germany, England because she desired to 
prevent Russia from increasing in strength, and Prussia 
from threatening Hanover. The Polish and Saxon ques- 
tions, thus closely connected with each other, formed the most 
thorny subject before the Congress, the very pivot on which 
everything turned. So heated did the discussion become 
that Talleyrand, utilizing the opposition of the Great 
Powers to each other, succeeded in forming a secret al- 
liance between England, Austria, and France, to resist 
these pretentions by arms if necessary (January 1815). 
The situation into which the powers had come over this 
Polish-Saxon question was manifestly so full of danger for 
all concerned that they began to recede from their extreme 
positions. This prepared the way for concessions, but the 
concessions were forced largely from Prussia. The oppo- 
sition to Russia was much less vehement, owing to her great 
military power. With three hundred thousand men ready 
for action she spoke with emphasis, and moreover, in the 
general state of exhaustion, Europe had no desire to go 



8 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

to war on account of Poland. The final decision was that 
Russia should receive the lion's share of the Duchy of War- 
♦ saw, Prussia retaining only the province of Posen, and 

Cracow being erected into a free city ; that the King of 
Saxony should be restored to his throne; that he should 
retain the important cities of Dresden and Leipsic, but 
should cede to Prussia about two-fifths of his kingdom ; 
that, as further compensation, Prussia should receive ex- 
tensive territories on both banks of the Rhine. Prussia 
also acquired Pomerania from Sweden, thus rounding out 
her coast line on the Baltic. 
Hussian ac- Russia emerged from the Congress with a goodly number 
of additions. She retained Finland, conquered from 
Sweden during the late wars, and Bessarabia, snatched from 
the Turks ; also Turkish territories in the southeast. But, 
most important of all, she had now succeeded in gaining most 
of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Russia now extended 
farther westward into Europe than ever, and could 
henceforth speak with greater weight in European 
affairs. 
Austrian ac- As Vienna was honored by being chosen the seat of the 
^uisitions. great Congress the House of Hapsburg profited greatly by 
the arrangements concluded there. Austria refused to take 
back her former possessions in southern Germany and 
Belgium, considering them too distant and too difficult to 
defend, and preferring to consolidate her power in south- 
ern and central Europe. She recovered her Polish posses- 
sions and received, as compensation for the Netherlands, 
northern Italy, to be henceforth known as the Lombardo- 
Venetian Kingdom, comprising the larger and richer part 
of the Po valley. The Illyrian provinces along the eastern 
coast of the Adriatic were erected into a kingdom and given 
to her. This enlargement of her coast line increased her 
importance as a maritime power. She also extended west- 
ward into the Tyrol and Salzburg, planting herself firmly 
upon the Alps. Thus, after twenty years of war, almost 



ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING ITALY 9 

uninterruptedly disastrous, she emerged with considerable 
accessions of strength, and with a population larger by 
four or five millions than she had possessed in 1792. She 
had obtained, in lieu of remote and unprofitable possessions, 
territories which augmented her power in central Europe, 
the immediate annexation of a part of Italy, and indirect 
control over the other Italian states. The policy followed 
by Austria in the negotiations was indicated by Metter- 
nich, who said, " We wished to establish our empire with- 
out there being any direct contact with France." This 
was accomplished. 

England, the most persistent enemy of Napoleon, the English ac- 
builder of repeated coalitions, the pay-mistress of the Allies I'^^isitions. 
for many years, found her compensation in additions to her 
colonial empire. She retained much that she had con- 
quered from France or from the allies or dependencies of 
France, particularly Holland. She occupied Heligoland in 
the North Sea, Malta and the Ionian Islands in the Mediter- 
ranean; Cape Colony in South Africa; Ceylon, Isle of 
France, Demerara, St. Lucia, Tobago, and Trinidad. It 
was partially in view of her colonial losses that Holland 
was indemnified by the annexation of Belgium on the Con- 
tinent, as already stated. 

Another question of great importance, decided at Vienna, The future 
was the disposition of Italy. The general principle of ac- °^ Italy- 
tion had already been laid down in the Treaty of Paris, that 
Austria should receive compensation here for the Nether- 
lands, and that the old dynasties should be restored. Aus- 
trian interests determined the territorial arrangements. 
Austria took possession, as has been said, of the richest and, 
in a military sense, the strongest provinces, Lombardy 
and Venetia, from which position she could easily dominate 
the peninsula, especially as the Duchy of Parma was given 
to Marie Louise, wife of Napoleon, and as princes con- 
nected with the Austrian imperial family were restored to 
their thrones in Modena and Tuscany. The Papal States 



10 



THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 



were also re-established. Austrian influence was henceforth 
substituted for French throughout the peninsula. 
Italy a No union or federation of these states was eff'ected, as in 

" ffsograph- Germany, largely because Austria feared that she would 
sion." ^^^ ^^ allowed the presidency of two confederations. It 

was Metternich's desire that Italy should simply be a col- 
lection of independent states, should be only a " geographical 
expression." The doctrine of legitimacy, appealed to for 
the restoration of dynasties, was ignored by this congress 
of princes in the case of republics. " Republics are no 
longer fashionable," said the Tsar to a Genoese deputation 
which came to protest against this arrangement. Genoa 
and Venice were handed over to others. Romilly mentioned 
in the English House of Commons that the Corinthian 
horses which Napoleon had brought from St. Marks to 
Paris were restored to the Venetians, but that it was certainly 
a strange act of justice " to give them back their statues, 
but not to restore to them those far more valuable posses- 
sions, their territory and their republic," which had been 
wrested from them at the same time. 

Other changes in the map of Europe, now made or ratified, 
were these: Norway was taken from Denmark and joined 
with Sweden: Switzerland was increased by the addition 
of three cantons which had recently been incorporated in 
France, thus making twenty-two cantons in all. The fron- 
tiers of Spain and Portugal were left untouched. 

Such were the territorial re-adjustments decreed by the 
Congress of Vienna, and which were destined to endure, with 
slight changes, for nearly fifty years. It is impossible to dis- 
cover in these negotiations the operation of any lofty prin- 
ciple. Self-interest is the key to this welter of bargains 
and agreements. Not that these titled brokers neglected 
to attempt to convince Europe of the nobility of their 
endeavors. Great phrases, such as " the reconstruction of 
the social order," " the regeneration of the political sys- 
tem of Europe," a " durable peace based upon a just di- 



Criticism 
of the 
Congress. 



THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE GERMANS 11 

vision of power," were used by the diplomats of Vienna in 
order to reassure the peoples of Europe, and to lend an 
air of dignity and elevation to this august assembly, but 
the peoples were not deceived. They saw the unedifying 
scramble of the conquerors for the spoils of victory. No 
ignominy was spared the people of Germany. The dip- 
lomats quarreled over the question whether some of the 
subjects of certain princes, who were not to be restored 
(the mediatized princes), subjects who paid small taxes, 
were to be reckoned as " whole souls," or " half souls." 
Germans were indignant as they saw themselves considered The indig- 

merely as numbers and articles of taxation. A German "^ ^°^ ° 

. . . the 

editor denounced this " heartless system of statistics," and Germans. 

glorious Bliicher grimly compared this congress to the an- 
nual cattle fair. The doctrine of legitimacy was one of 
the rhetorical shibboleths, but, as already said, it was ap- 
plied only capriciously as suited the Great Powers. Re- 
publics need not invoke it, and even kings were curtly ex- 
cluded from its benefits. Gustavus IV, of Sweden, de- 
throned, claimed in vain his restoration. The King of , 
Denmark was forced to acquiesce in the grievous dismem- 
berment of his kingdom. For years the monarchs of \ 
Europe had denounced Napoleon for respecting neither the 
rights of princes nor those of peoples. They now paid him i 
the flattery of hearty imitation. They ignored as cavalierly 
as he had done the prescriptive rights of rulers, whenever it 
seemed to them advantageous to do so. The principle of 
nationality which Napoleon had contemned to his own un- 
doing, they treated with similar disdain. It was in de- Defiance 

fiance of this principle that Austria was given a command- 

• Ti T .1 . T^T ^ ^ ■, n principle 

mg position m Italy, that Norway was handed from ^^ nation- 
Denmark, whose language she spoke, to Sweden, as com- ality. 
pensation for Finland, which the latter was forced to re- 
nounce to Russia, and for Pomerania, which she was forced 
to cede to Prussia, that the Belgians were united with the 
Dutch. 



la THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

Europe generally acquiesced willingly in the work of 
this Congress, ardently desirous as it was after the long, 
sickening wars, for peace at almost any price, and that work 
proved reasonably durable. Yet the settlement of Vienna 
had pronounced enemies from the start, anxious to overthrow 
it. Among the disaffected were the French, who saw what 
they regarded as their natural boundary taken from them. 
They alone, among the important nations, came forth from 
this international liquidation with no accessions of territory. 
Prussia, Russia, Austria, and England, all received additions 
and important ones. But not so France, and thus relatively 
to the others France was weakened. For Frenchmen these 
treaties of 1815 were " odious," and to be torn up when 
the propitious time should come. Multitudes, also, of Ger- 
mans and Italians were embittered as they saw their hopes 
of unity and liberal government turn to ashes. The Bel- 
gians resented being handed about without even being con- 
sulted. They rose in revolt in 1830, and destroyed this 
artifice of 1815. The arrangements concerning Germany 
and Italy were demolished in the great decade of 1860 to 
1870. 
Demincia- Though the division of territories and the determination 

tion of the ^f ^}jg map of Europe constituted the main work of the 
' Congress of Vienna, other subjects were passed upon as 
well. Though it did not abolish the slave trade, it con- 
demned it in a solemn utterance " as contrary to the prin- 
ciples of civilization and human right." It was something 
to have the traffic thus officially branded. The Congress also 
established a federal form of government for Germany, 
which will be described in a succeeding chapter. It adopted 
certain articles concerning the future organization of 
Switzerland. The Final Act, codifying the work of 
the Congress during its many months of activity, was 
signed June 9, 1815, a few days only before the battle 
of W^aterloo. All the governments of Europe accepted 
its provisions, except Spain and the Papacy, whose 



SECOND TREATY OF PARIS 13 

opposition was treated by the others with easy-going 
indifference. 

While the Congress of Vienna was slowly elaborating the The "Hun- 
system that should succeed the Napoleonic on the basis of ^"^ ^^y^" 
a certain balance of power, Napoleon escaped from Elba, 
made straight for Paris, seized the government of France 
from the hands of the fleeing Louis XVIII, and entered upon 
a reign of a " Hundred Days." The Allies once more forgot 
their wranglings, indignantly gathered themselves together 
to end this menace once for all, and Waterloo was their 
reward. The sudden flash had, however, proved the necessity 
of legislation supplementary to that of the Congress before 
peace could be considered secure. The first Treaty of Paris 
had not proved a solid basis for a reconstructed Europe. A 
restored Bourbon had not been able to keep his throne. Now 
France must give sufficient bonds that in the future she 
would not disturb the tranquillity of the Continent. The 
result was the second Treaty of Paris (November 20, 1815), Second 
concluded, like the first, between Louis XVIII, restored once . 
more, and the Allies, but unlike the first, imposing heavy 
and humiliating burdens upon France. Her territory was 
reduced, involving a loss of about half of a million in- 
habitants, though it was still larger than at the outbreak 
of the Revolution. She was forced to cede a number of 
strategic posts on her northern and eastern frontier. She 
was to pay a war indemnity of 700,000,000 francs and 
eighteen fortresses were to be occupied by 150,000 troops 
of the Allies for a maximum of five years, a minimum of 
three, these troops to be supported by the French. It has 
been estimated that the total cost of the " Hundred Days " to 
France, resulting from these stipulations and certain addi- 
tional claims of the Allies, amounted in the end to 1,570,000,- 
000 francs, the equivalent In purchasing power of about 
6,000,000,000 francs to-day. 

Before quitting Paris in the fall of this eventful year 
of 1815, the Allies signed two more documents of great 



14* THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

significance in the future history of Europe, that estabhsh- 
The Holy ing the so-called Holy Alliance, and that establishing the 
Alliance. Quadruple Alliance. The former proceeded from the in- 
itiative of Alexander I, of Russia, whose mood was now 
deeply religious under the influence of the tremendous events 
of recent years and the fall of Napoleon, which to his 
mind seemed the swift verdict of a higher power in human 
destinies. He himself had been freely praised as the White 
Angel, in contrast to the fallen Black Angel, and he had 
been called the Universal Saviour. He now submitted a 
document to his immediate allies, Prussia and Austria, which 
was famous for a generation, and which gave the popular 
name to the system of repression which was for many years 
followed by the powers that had conquered in the late 
campaign, a document unique in the history of diplomacy. 
Invoking the name of " the very holy and indivisible 
Trinity," these three monarchs, " in view of the great 
events which the last three years have brought to pass in 
Europe, and in view, especially, of the benefits which it 
has pleased Divine Providence to confer upon those states 
whose governments have placed their confidence and their 
hope in Him alone," having reached the profound convic- 
tion that the policy of the powers, in their mutual relations, 
ought to be guided by the " sublime truths taught by the 
eternal religion of God our Saviour " solemnly declare 
" their unchangeable determination to adopt no other rule 
of conduct, either in the government of their respective 
countries, or in their political relations with other govern- 
ments than the precepts of that holy religion, the precepts 
of justice, charity, and peace"; solemnly declare, also, that 
those principles " far from being applicable exclusively to 
private life, ought on the contrary to control the resolutions 
of princes, and to guide their steps as the sole means of 
establishing human institutions, and of remedying their im- 
perfections." Henceforth, accordingly, " conformably to 
the words of Holy Scripture " the three monarchs will con- 



THE HOLY ALLIANCE 15 

sider themselves as brothers and fellow citizens, " united by The Allies 

the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity," and will P^^"J^^^ 

•^ . aid to 

lend " aid and assistance to each other on all occasions and e^gji other, 

in all places, regarding themselves, in their relations to 
their subjects and to their armies, as fathers of families." 
Hence, their " sole principle of conduct " shall be that " of 
rendering mutual service and testifying by unceasing good 
will the mutual affection with which they should be animated. 
Considering themselves all as members of one great Chris- 
tian nation, the three allied princes look upon themselves as 
delegates of Providence called upon to govern three branches 
of the same family," namely, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. 
" Their majesties recommend, therefore, to their peoples, 
as the sole means of enjoying that peace which springs 
from a good conscience and is alone enduring, to fortify 
themselves each day in the principles and practice of those 
duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to men." " All 
those powers who wish solemnly to make avowal " of these 
" sacred principles shall be received into this Holy Alliance 
with as much cordiality as affection." ^ 

This document, born of the religious emotionalism of the Unusual 

Tsar, has no parallel. Written in the form of a treaty, it ^ ^, 

... -^ of the 

imposes none of the practical obligations of a treaty, but Alliance. 

is rather a confession of faith and purpose. Diplomatists 
were amazed at its unworldly character. Ultimately, nearly 
all the powers of Europe signed it, more out of com- 
pliment to the Tsar than from any intellectual sympathy. 
Metternlch pronounced it a " sonorous nothing," a " philan- 
thropic aspiration clothed in a religious garb," an " overflow 
of the pietistic feelings of the Emperor Alexander " ; 
Castlereagh, a " piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense " ; 
Gentz, a bit of " stage decoration." Yet for a generation 
this Holy Alliance or " diplomatic apocalypse " stood In 
the mind of the world as the synonym for the regime of 

' Extracts from University of Pennsylvania Translations and Reprints, 
Vol. I, No. 3. Edited by J. H. Robinson. 



16 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

absolutism and repression which prevailed in Europe. But 
that regime was not the outcome of the treaty of the Holy 
Alliance, but rather that of the treaty of the Quadruple 
Alliance concluded in the same year. The former was a 
dead letter from the moment of issue, and did not influence 
the policy, either domestic or foreign, of any state. Its 
author, Alexander I, was, moreover, in 1815 a liberal in 
politics who had been largely instrumental in forcing the 
restored Bourbon, Louis XVIII, to grant a constitution to 
France, and who was himself about to grant one to Poland. 
He was certainly at this moment far from thinking of 
inaugurating a system of repression. But the latter, the 
treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, became under the manipu- 
lation of Mettemich a stern and forbidding reality, as we 
shall see. The liberal newspapers of the Continent confused 
the two treaties, naturally enough, as Russia, Austria, and 
Prussia were signatories of both, and they came to speak 
with hatred of the Holy Alliance. The name excepted, 
however, the Holy Alliance is much less important than the 
ftuadruple Quadruple Alliance concluded November 20, 1815. 

Napoleon had been overthrown only by collective Europe, 
bound together in a great coalition. The episode of the 
" Hundred Days," occurring while the Congress of Vienna 
was laying the foundations of the new Europe, proved the 
necessity of the prolongation of that union. Hence, there 
appeared the " Concert of Powers," which for the next few 
years is the central fact in the international affairs of 
Europe. In the eyes of the victorious mcr.archs there were 
two dangers menacing the system they were resolved to re- 
store : France as a military power ; and " French ideas," 
the ideas of the Revolution, of the rights of peoples and 
individuals which, operating upon the masses of the differ- 
ent states, might lead them to attempt to remold the dif- 
ferent governments along French lines. Against the first 
danger ample precautions had been taken. France was 
now surrounded by a ring of states sufficiently strong in 



Alliance. 



THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE IT 

a military sense to hold her in check temporarily, and to 
prevent any such invasions of the French as had occurred 
during the previous years. Moreover, many of her fron- 
tier fortresses had been taken from her, leaving weak spots 
in her line of defense, particularly toward Germany. She 
had also been forced to consent to the occupation of her 
territory for several years by a large army under the com- 
mand of the powers that had just humbled her. As if this 
were not enough, she was herself to pay for the support of 
those troops, and also to pay a large indemnity. It was 
believed that all this would be sufficient to compel her to 
keep the peace, that she would have domestic problems severe 
and exacting enough to absorb her entire attention. 

The control or extinction of the so-called " French Precautions 
ideas " was a more baffling and subtle problem, but one ^^^^^^ 
which the Allies felt it necessary to attack. For this pur- 
pose they, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England, signed 
a Treaty of Alliance on November 20, 1815, engaging to 
employ all their means to prevent the general tranquillity 
from being again disturbed, binding themselves " to main- 
tain in full vigor, and should it be necessary, with the whole 
of their forces," the permanent exclusion of Napoleon and 
his family from the throne of France, promising to con- 
cert necessary measures " in case the same Revolutionary 
Principles, which upheld the last criminal usurpation," 
should again, " under other forms, convulse France." Ex- 
pressing themselves as " uniformly disposed to adopt every 
salutary measure calculated to secure the tranquillity of 
Europe by maintaining the order of things re-established 
in France," they agreed, in order " to consolidate the con- The Concert 
nections, which at the present moment so closely unite the °* Powers, 
four Sovereigns for the happiness of the world," to renew 
their meetings " at fixed periods, either under the im- 
mediate auspices of the sovereigns themselves or by their 
respective ministers, for the purpose of consulting upon their 
interests, or for the consideration of the measures which. 



18 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

at each of these periods, shall be considered the most salu- 
tary for the repose and prosperity of Nations and for the 
maintenance of the Peace of Europe." ^ 

This was virtually an assertion that the four Great Powers 
would henceforth control Europe in the interests of the 
ideas they represented. The Alliance, whose object had been 
to overthrow Napoleon, was to be projected into the time 
of peace. There was thus started that series of con- 
gresses which, for the next eight years, exercised a rigid 
inquisition into the political movements of Europe, and a 
pitiless repression of such as appeared dangerous. This 
alliance was contracted with a view particularly to keeping 
France harmless. The important provision is that con- 
cerning future congresses, and it was the manipulation of 
these congresses in the interest of reaction, the conversion 
of this alliance into an engine of universal repression, largely 
Alliance by the adroit diplomacy of Metternich, that made the three 
. powers which consistently co-operated, and had first 

signed the Treaty of the Holy Alliance, Russia, Prussia, 
and Austria, so odious to the Liberals of the Continent. In 
1815 this Quadruple Alliance appeared as a warning only 
to France, but the first congress held under the agreement 
disclosed a compact union of the three eastern states against 
the spirit of reform everywhere. England's policy rapidly 
diverged, as we shall see, from that of her allies. 

The fate of Europe in the period after 1815 was largely 
controlled by the powers that had thus proclaimed the prin- 
ciples of the Christian religion their favorite rule of 
conduct, yet the probable character of their policy could 
be more accurately foretold by a study of the character of 
their rulers rather than of the biblical principles to which 
they were amiably inclined to append their signatures. 
Each was an absolute monarch, recognizing no trammels 

' Quotations are from Treaty of Alliance and Friendship. Signed 
Paris, November 20, 1815. Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, I, 
372-375. 



THE MEMBERS OF THE HOLY ALLIANCE 19 

upon his power, save such as he himself might be willing 
to concede. To each the fundamental idea of the Revolu- 
tion, the sovereignty of the people, was incomprehensible 
and loathsome. Each had suffered repeatedly and griev- 
ously from that Revolution. Each was sure to be its enemy, 
should it break forth again. Yet there were variations. 
The Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, appeared, in 1815, the Alexander I, 
most powerful monarch of Europe. Young, imaginative, 1777-1825. 
impressionable, he had received in his early education a 
tincture of western liberalism which, in the years immediately 
after Waterloo, seemed likely to deepen. This at first made 
Metternich regard him as little less than a Jacobin, all the 
more dangerous because crowned. Yet he was known as 
changeable, as egoistic, as influenced by fear. Frederick 
William III, King of Prussia, slow, timid, conceiving gov- 
ernment in a parental, patriarchal sense, was a weak ruler, 
but a ruler whose views were those of the eighteenth century, 
who did not see the change that had come over the world, 
who was disposed to plod along contentedly in the tradi- 
tional path of the absolute Prussian monarchy, distrusting 
innovations, deferential toward Austria. The other member 
of the Holy Alliance was Francis I, of Austria, the most Francis I 

narrow-minded, illiberal of the three. He, too, had learned °^ Austria, 

1768-1835. 
nothing from the suggestive vicissitudes of his career. His 

mind was commonplace, barren, even mean. The spirit of 

his rule is mirrored in certain well-known utterances : " The 

whole world is mad and wants new constitutions." " Keep 

yourselves," he said to a group of professors in 1821, " to 

what is old, for that is good ; if our ancestors have proved 

it to be good why should not we do as they did? New ideas 

are now coming forward of which I do not nor ever shall 

approve. Mistrust these ideas and keep to the positive. 

I have no need of learned men. I want faithful subjects. Be 

such : that is your duty. He who would serve me must do what 

I command. He who cannot do this, or who comes full of 

new ideas, may go his way. If he does not I shall send him." 



20 



THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 



Mettemich, 
1773-1859. 



His 

diplomatic 

skill. 



Though Francis I was a commonplace character he pos- 
sessed in his chief minister, Prince Metternich, a man far out 
of the ordinary, a man who appeared to the generation 
that lived between 1815 and 1848 as the most commanding 
personality of Europe, whose importance is shown in the 
phrases, " era of Metternich," " system of Metternich." 
He was the central figure not only in Austrian and German 
politics, but in European diplomacy, dominating his age as 
Napoleon had dominated his, though by a very different 
process. Metternich was the most famous statesman Austria 
produced in the nineteenth century. A man of high rank, 
wealthy, polished, he was the prince of diplomatists " with- 
out a peer in his age or in his style," says a French his- 
torian and critic, " who deserved to govern Europe as long 
as Europe deserved to be governed by diplomacy. In this 
respect everything about him is interesting. . . . Met- 
ternich remains by exterior grace, by the excellence of tone, 
the perfection of attitude, and the subtle knowledge of the 
proprieties, an incomparable master. The great comedy 
of the world, the high intriguing of the European stage, 
has never had so fertile an author, an actor so consum- 
mate," ^ 

Metternich's reputation was based on his long and tortuous 
diplomatic duel with Napoleon. Claiming to have correctly 
read that bewildering personality from his earliest observa- 
tion of him, and to have lured him slowly yet inevitably to 
his doom by playing skilfully upon his weaknesses, Metter- 
nich considered himself the conqueror of the conqueror. An 
achievement so notable imposed upon many, nor did Met- 
ternich do aught to dim the brilliancy of the exploit. His 
imperturbability, his prescience, his diplomatic dexterity 
were everywhere praised. He came to be considered the 
one great oracle, whose every word was full of meaning, if 
only you could get it. Diplomats bowed like acolytes be- 
fore this master of their craft, and rulers also made their 



^ Sorel, Essais d'Histoire et de Critique, 21-22. 



PRINCE METTERNICH 21 

obeisance, though somewhat more slowly, as obviously be- 
fitted those who ruled by nothing less than divine right. A 
few years after 1815, Alexander I, of Russia, whose liberal 
vagaries had sorely tried this infallible high priest, made his 
penance. " You are not altered," he said, " I am. You 
have nothing to regret, but I have." 

Metternich played this lofty role with becoming gravity 
and grandeur. His cynicism, so corroding for his contem- 
poraries, never turned upon himself. Humility is hardly 
a proper weakness for a primate. No adulation could equal 
his own self-appreciation. He speaks of himself as being His 
born " to prop up the decaying structure " of European self-esteem, 
society. He feels the world resting on his shoulders. " My 
position has this peculiarity," he says, " that all eyes, all 
expectations are directed to precisely that point where I 
happen to be." He asks the question : " Why, among so 
many million men, must I be the one to think when others 
do not think, to act when others do not act, and to write 
because others know not how." Traveling in Italy in 1817, 
he records : " My presence in Italy produces an incalculable 
effect." Traveling in Germany in 1818, he notes: "I 
came to Frankfort like the Messiah." Elsewhere he says : 
" Happy is he who can say of himself that he has never 
strayed from the path of eternal law. Such testimony, my 
conscience cannot refuse me." This superb presumption 
stood the test of all experience. Even in 1848, after the 
revolutions of Italy and Germany, the abdication of his 
emperor, and his own overthrow and flight to London, he 
said : " My mind has never entertained error." 

As an historical figure Metternich's importance consists His 
in his execration of the French Revolution. His life-long liistorical 
role was that of incessant, lynx-eyed opposition to every- 
thing comprehended in the word. He lavished upon it a 
wealth of metaphorical denunciation. It was " the disease 
which must be cured, the volcano which must be extin- 
guished, the gangrene which must be burned out with the 



22 THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE 

hot iron, the hydra with jaws open to swallow up the social 
order." He was the sworn enemy of the Revolution. He 
had a horror of parliaments and representative regimes. 
" France and England," he said, " may be considered as 
countries without a government." He defined himself as 
the man of the status quo. His was a doctrine of pure 
immobility. The new ideas ought never to have come into 
the world, but the past could not be helped. Prevention of 
the further spread of these new ideas was, he felt, the im- 
perative requirement of European politics. He was the 
minister of European conservatism. His strength lay in 
the fact that repose was the passionate desire of the men 
of 1815. Nothing seemed more fearful to Europe than a 
recurrence of war. Only it was safe to say that a Europe, 
invigorated, electrified as this had been, however exhausted, 
Doctrine of however desirous of rest for the time, would not be willing 
"^ ^ to be forever quiescent. The ideal of immobility as a 

permanent thing is the paralysis of thought. Mettemich 
failed in the end, though for a while Europe was blinded 
by his success, because, while he could imprison revolution- 
ists, he could not imprison ideas. He failed to understand 
the impalpable forces of his age. 

Considering the work of the Congress of Vienna as 
largely his, his concrete task was, henceforth, to consolidate 
that work, to repel all attacks upon it. He saw only one side 
of the Revolution, the destructive. The constructive side he 
never understood. This, however, was for the future the 
more important. A comprehension of it was most essential 
for a statesman who felt the world resting on his shoulders. 

How Mettemich worked out his system will be seen in 
succeeding chapters. His lever was Austria. Austria's 
legal rights and commanding authority in Germany and 
Italy, and his own remarkable powers of persuasion, sug- 
gestion, and intimidation were the instruments used in the 
erection of the international fabric which took its name 
from him. 



CHAPTER II 
REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

Austria emerged from the Napoleonic wars stronger, 
larger, and more populous than ever. She had been re- 
peatedly shattered, her boundaries repeatedly redefined 
during the last twenty years, yet the result was favorable. 
She had relinquished her possessions in the Netherlands (mod- 
ern Belgium) and some of her southwest German lands, but 
had been indemnified by lands in Germany and Italy, which 
were contiguous and more advantageous. At the very 
moment that her great German rival, Prussia, was becoming 
more straggling and loosely extended, Austria was attaining 
a territorial compactness she had never known. Planted 
firmly upon the Alps and the Carpathians, and with an 
extensive coast line along the Adriatic, she was admirably 
situated for an assertive role in European politics. 

The Austrian Empire, however, presented to the eye cer- lack of 
tain peculiarities, offered by no other state in Europe, a ^i^ity i^ t^6 
knowledge of which is essential to an understanding of her j-j^^jij-g 
history in the nineteenth century. The empire was con- 
spicuously lacking in unity, political, racial, or social. It 
was not a single nation like France but was composed of 
many nations. To the west were the Austrian duchies, 
chiefly German, the ancient possessions of the House of 
Hapsburg ; to the north Bohemia, an ancient kingdom ac- 
quired by the Hapsburgs in 1526; to the east the Kingdom 
of Hungary, occupying the immense plain of the middle 
Danube; to the south the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, 
purely Italian. None of these even was a unit but each was 
I composed of several parts. Bohemia included, beside Bohemia 
proper, Moravia and Silesia; Hungary included far to the 

23 



M REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 



Racial 
differences. 



Not a 

German 

Empire. 



east the principality of Transylvania, and to the southwest 
the Kingdom of Croatia. Many of these constituent elements 
preserved special privileges, thus rendering the government 
confused and unequal. 

More important still was the fact that this empire was in- 
habited by many peoples which differed greatly in origin, in 
language, in history, in customs and institutions. At best 
these racial and linguistic differences rendered difficult, if 
not impossible, the growth of a national consciousness, a com- 
mon patriotism ; at the worst they might become mutually 
antagonistic and tend to disrupt the empire. The two lead- 
ing races were the Germans, forming the body of the popu- 
lation in the Austrian duchies, and the Magyars, originally 
an Asiatic folk, encamped in the Danube valley since the 
ninth century, and forming the dominant people in Hun- 
gary. Yet also in the eastern part of Hungary were Rou- 
manians, reputed descendants of early Roman colonists and 
speaking a language of Latin origin, and there were Slavic 
peoples north and south of the Germans and Magyars in 
both Austria and Hungary. In this medley of states, races, 
and languages there lay numberless possible causes of di- 
vision and contention. They had almost nothing in common 
save allegiance to the emperor and, for most of them, to the 
Roman Catholic Church. If the desire for a separate na- 
tional life should spring up among these various peoples, the 
Empire might be disrupted, would at any rate be trans- 
formed. In 1815, however, there was not the rivalry in 
nationality and language that has since become so acute. 
This empire was not a German empire, though it had the 
appearance of so being. The Germans were the most influen- 
tial element, the ruling house was German, Vienna, the capi- 
tal, was a German city, the German language was used for 
official intercourse. An attempt had been made in the 
eighteenth century, under Joseph II, thoroughly to German- 
ize the empire, but it had completely and quickly failed and 
it was not likely to be made again in the nineteenth century, 




DISTRIBUTION OF RACE S 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 



EnglLsh AlUes 



POLICY OF FRANCIS I 25 

as the balance between the German and the non-German 
elements had been altered since, considerably in favor of the 
latter. The Germans were in a decided numerical minority, 
but by reason of their greater wealth, intelligence, and 
general advancement they remained the leading element in 
the state. But the nineteenth century was to see their 
leadership contested and gradually weakened by the rise of 
strong national and race movements in Hungary and Bo- 
hemia. The Slavs formed the majority of the population 
of the entire empire, but they were not homogeneous, were 
geographically scattered, were in civilization inferior, and 
were for the time quiescent. 

To rule so conglomerate a realm of twenty-eight or Policy of 
twenty-nine million people was a task of great difficulty, -"^^^cis 
This was the first problem of Francis I (1792-1835) and jietternich. 
Metternich. Their policy in the main was to keep things 
as they were. To innovate was to enter a lane that might 
know no turning. They made no attempt to reform the 
government. They allowed the various parts of the political 
machine to continue, lacking as it was in symmetry and in 
efficiency. This machinery was both chaotic and unscien- 
tific. There was no central, coherent cabinet, or group of 
ministers. There were, of course, various departments, but 
some had jurisdiction over the whole empire, some only over 
parts. In any case the boundaries were not carefully de- 
fined. Government was exceedingly slow, cumbrous, dis- 
jointed, inefficient. 

Austria was now the classic land of the old regime. Her Austria a 

boundaries had been repeatedly changed at the hands of ° . ^ 

. ^ •' ^ Old Regime. 

Napoleon, but the mternal structure of the state and of 

society had remained unaltered. The people were sharply 

divided into classes, each resting on a different legal basis. 

Of these the nobility occupied a highly privileged position. 

They enjoyed freedom from compulsory military service, 

large exemptions from taxation, a practical monopoly of the 

Ibest offices in the state. They possessed a large part of the 



26 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

land, from which in many cases they drew enormous revenues. 
Upon their estates they exercised many of the same feudal 
rights as had their ancestors, such as those of the police 
power and of administering justice through their own courts. 
They exacted the corvee and other services from the peasants. 
The condition of the peasants, indeed, who formed the 
immense mass of the population, was deplorable. It has been 
stated that in Bohemia, for instance, they owed half of their 
time and two-thirds of their crops to the lords, and in certain 
parts it was not uncommon for human beings and cattle to be 
sheltered by the same roof. The peasants had indeed been 
refused the right to purchase release from their heaviest 
burdens. These were the two classes into which Austrian 
society was divided, for the bourgeoisie, or middle class, was 
only slightly developed and of little importance. Industry 
was in a backward state, hampered at every point by official 
regulations, 
local There were throughout the empire various local bodies 

government, called estates, which, however, constituted no real check 
upon the absolutism of the central government. They in no 
sense constituted local self-government. They were com- 
posed almost entirely of nobles, and their powers were slight. 
Their sessions were brief, perfunctory, and furnished no 
political training. Hungary occupied a somewhat special 
position. She had a central diet or parliament and long- 
established county governments. They, however, were no 
great barrier to the working of the central government, 
which, indeed, for thirteen years, from 1812 to 1825, re- 
fused in spite of the law to call the Diet together. Moreover, 
these Hungarian assemblies did not represent the Hungarian 
people but merely the privileged classes. Absolutism in gov- 
ernment, feudalism in society, special privileges for the 
favored few, oppression and misery for the masses, such was 
the condition of Austria in 1815. 
The police It was the fixed purpose of the Grovemment to maintain 
system. things as they were and it succeeded largely for thirty-three 



THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION 31 

was no king or emperor of Germany. There was no German 
flag. No one was, properly speaking, a German citizen. He Germany 
was a Prussian, or Austrian, or Bavarian citizen, as the ^o*^ 
case might be. The federal government had no diplomatic 
representatives in the other countries of Europe, but each 
state had, or could have, its own diplomatic corps. The 
German as German had no legal standing abroad, — only as 
a citizen of a separate state that might, but generally did 
not, command respect. Each state had the right to make 
alhances of every kind with the others or with non-German 
states. The only serious obligation they assumed toward 
each other was that they should enter into no engagement 
that should be directed against the safety of the Confedera- 
tion or that of any individual state within the union ; that 
they should not make war upon each other upon any pretext, 
but should submit their contentions to the Diet ; that if the 
Confederation should declare war, all the states should sup- 
port it, and that none should negotiate separately with the 
enemy or alone make peace. 

Such was the constitution given to Germany by the Con- 
gress of Vienna. It created a government in which obstruc- 
tion was easy, positive action very difficult. Each state 
possessed powers of delaying decisions of the Diet inter- 
minably, even, in many cases, of rendering them impossible. 
Moreover this government, weak as it was, was not even 
purely German. Three rulers of foreign states were mem- 
bers of it and could influence its deliberations, particularly 
in those cases where an individual veto would prove decisive, 
that is, in all the most fundamental and organic matters. 
The king of England was represented for Hanover, a pos- 
session of the English royal family, the king of Denmark for 
Holstein, the king of the Netherlands for Luxemburg. Prus- The inter- 
sia and Austria too might be influenced to look upon the Con- national 
federation in the light of their international position and in- ^^^^^^^^^ 
terests, Austria particularly, as only one-third of the Aus- Confeder- 
trian Empire was within the bounds of the Confederation, ation. 



32 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

The other two-thirds, mainly non-German, were not included, 
yet their interests might dictate the policy of the Austrian 
delegates. Thus Hungarians, Poles, and Italians might in- 
directly influence the determination of purely German ques- 
tions in the German Diet. The international rather than 
national character of this Confederation was further mani- 
fested in the fact that the chief articles of the Federal Act 
establishing it were inserted in the Final Act of the Congress 
of Vienna, and as such were under the collective guaranty of 
the powers and therefore presumably not to be altered with- 
out their consent. 

It is clear that a Germany so organized was not a nation 
but only a loose confederation of states expressly declared to 
be independent and sovereign, a confederation designed 
simply for mutual protection, and poorly adapted even for 
that. " Judged by the requirements of a practical political 
organization," says von Sybel, " this German Act of Con- 
federation, produced with so much effort, possessed about 
all the faults that can render a constitution utterly useless." 
He adds that it " was received by the German nation at 
large, partly with cold indifference, and partly with patriotic 
indignation," 
Bissatisfac- This indignation was vehemently felt by the Liberals, who, 
tion of the under the influence of the tremendous struggles with Napo- 
with this ^eon, had come passionately to demand a close and firm union 
system. of all Germans that thus they might realize in their institu- 

tions and in the face of all the world the greatness which they 
felt was in them. The exaltation of the final struggle with 
Napoleon had only heightened the demand of the more pro- 
gressive spirits for national unity, that thus Germany might 
never henceforth be subjected to the humiliations of the past 
at the hands of foreigners. This longing for unity and 
strength, which in the patriotic atmosphere of the late wars 
had seemed so near realization, was now seen to be a hope 
deferred. German unity was, according to Metternich, an 
" infamous object," and the views of the diplomats at Vienna 



THE PROBLEM OF GERMAN UNITY 33 

were more those of Mettemich than of the Liberals. The 
latter were indignant at what thej called the great deception 
of Vienna, and their bitterness was to be a factor in the later 
development of Germany. 

That they were from the very force of circumstances, the "^^y t^^ 
very nature of existing conditions, inevitably destined to ^ 
disappointment we can see more clearly than did they, swept unity was 
along as they were by the strong patriotic current of the so difficult, 
hour, little appreciating the bewildering, baffling complexity 
of their problem. The object they aimed at was one of su- 
preme difficulty. German unity was not simply a matter of 
sentiment, however fine and just, but was a hard, practical 
question only to be answered, if at all, by ripe political sense 
and wisdom. It involved the adjustment of many conflicting 
and perhaps irreconcilable interests. Traditions, centuries 
old, must be overcome. Mere inertia was a powerful ob- 
stacle. And another was the fact that the future of Ger- 
many was not left for the Germans to work out alone. It 
was a part of the work of the Congress of Vienna, of the 
general settlement of Europe. This brought it about that 
the Act of Federation was hastily framed and that, too, 
partially by powers careless of German interests or hostile 
to them. It was no desire of neighboring states to have a 
strong and united Germany. But the main obstacle lay in 
one of the oldest, most persistent facts of German political 
life and history, the strong states-rights or particularist 
feeling. No effective union could be established unless the 
various members would surrender some of their authority. 
Not one of the German princes was willing to pay the price. 
Austria, more non-German than German, could not for that 
very reason hope to be the supreme power in a really united 
Germany, therefore she favored a loose union wherein she 
might, by playing upon rival passions, enjoy a lesser leader- 
ship. Prussia could not be given the leadership in a new 
empire, as Austria would not consent and the lesser states 
would be alarmed. Obviously, none of the smaller states 



34 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 



The states- 
right 
feeling. 



Dualism 
the out- 
come of 
German 
evolution. 



could hope to exercise a power they would not grant to either 
of the greater. Moreover, they believed that any sacrifice of 
sovereignty would only leave them exposed to the aggrandiz- 
ing passions of the great. At first these lesser states, indeed, 
wished to be entirely independent, to have no union at all, 
even that of a loose confederation. The conclusive argu- 
ment against this was that Germany must at least be strong 
enough so that no second series of events like that of the 
Napoleonic invasions and conquests should again occur. 

Thus it is seen that the radical evil of the German situ- 
ation was the particularism or excessive individualism of the 
states. This was nothing new, but had been for centuries 
the most powerful fact. This feeling was now even more 
pronounced than ever, for the reason that the lesser states 
had latterly grown stronger by their absorption of their 
neighbors in the period just elapsed. National unity had 
been wrecked by it. It could only be restored, says Sybel, 
by the further extreme development of this spirit — till one 
state should become so large that it would overshadow all 
the rest and force them to recognize its ascendency — then 
the selfishness of one would end in the unity of all. Now 
the unity of England and France had been brought about 
in precisely this way, by the absorption by one state of 
all its rivals, but the outcome of German evolution had 
been peculiar, in that it had seen the rise of two great 
powers, not one, Prussia and Austria, neither able to con- 
quer or push the other aside, and each most jealous of any 
increase of the other's power. Such was the play of am- 
bition and interest, baffling the ingenuity and ability of those 
who desired a real and fruitful union of all Germans. A 
Prussian field marshal, Clausewitz, wrote at about this time: 
" Germany can achieve political unity only in one way, by 
the sword; by one of its states subjugating all the others," a 
thought put later into a more resounding phrase by Bis- 
marck, and expressing approximately the method by which 
unity was finally acliieved. But so hard a doctrine lay be- 



THE DESIRE FOR CONSTITUTIONS 35 

yond the range of understanding of the early nineteenth 

century. 

The Liberals of Germany, eager for national unity, thus The demand 

suffered a severe defeat at Vienna. They were given a con- consti- 

f. ^ TT 1 n -i-i • 1 tutional 

federation, looser than that of the Holy Roman Empire, and government 

Avith none of the glory and luster of the latter, a union only 
nominal, inefficient, and prosaic, containing no vital force. 
The Liberals were also eager for reforms within the states, 
for constitutional government, for parliaments with real 
powers, for the end of absolutism. Here again they were 
disappointed. They had hoped to get a mandatory pro- 
vision in the Federal Act establishing representative legis- 
latures in each one of the states of Germany. In appealing 
to his people to rally around him in the war against Napo- 
leon, the King of Prussia had very recently promised his 
people a constitution and had urged at the Congress of 
Vienna that the Federal Act should require every mem- 
ber of the Confederation to grant a representative con- 
stitution to his subjects within a year. Metternich, even Metter- 

more opposed to free political institutions than to a strong "^^h's suc- 

1 1 • 1 ■ • 1 1 y 1. cessf ul cp- 

central government, succeeded in thwarting the reformers at position 

this point also, by having this explicit and mandatory decla- 
ration made vague and lifeless. Thus the famous Article 
XIII of the Federal Act was made to read : " A constitution 
based upon the system of estates will be estabished in all the 
states of the union." The character of the new constitu- 
tions was not sketched ; and the time limit was omitted. A 
journalist was justified in saying that all that was guaran- 
teed to the German people was an " unlimited right of expec- 
tation." The future was to show the vanity even of expecta- 
tion, the hollowness of even so mild a promise. The Liberals 
had desired something more substantial than hope. Austria 
and Prussia, the two leading states, governing the great 
mass of the German people, never executed this provision. 
Nor did many of the smaller states. 

Germany, then, in 1815, consisted of thirty-eight loosely 



36 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

connected states. Some of these were very large, some ex- 
ceedingly small. Prussia and Austria ranked with the 
greatest powers of Europe. Some of them were old, had 
their individual history, traditions, and prestige. Others 
were new, or had recently undergone such sweeping changes 
as to be practically new. Their future was highly problem- 
atical. Their boundaries were intertwined and complicated. 
Some were what are called enclaves, that is, were entirely 
surrounded by another state, having no egress to the out- 
side world save through the neighbor's territory. Economic 
life could not flourish owing to the tariffs and change of 
coinage that met merchant and trader at every border, and 
owing also to the wretched means of communication and 
transportation. These states presented many varieties of 
Various governments. There were some where absolutism prevailed, 
forms of where the prince was the law-giver, the executor, and the 

governmen iy^jgg ruling; without the aid of any assembly, without out- 
in the dif- *^. ^ . * *^ ■^ . . 

ferent Ger- ®^^^ restraints. Such were the two greatest, Austria and 

man states. Prussia, and such were several of the smaller. There were 
others where the prince was assisted in his work by assemblies, 
bodies which the people had no right to claim, but which the 
ruler in his condescension saw fit to call about him, in no sense 
popular bodies, chosen by the people, but composed mainly of 
nobles. These exercised little control over the acts of the 
prince, but were at least in a position to present grievances. 
Most of the states of Germany, as Hanover, Mecklenburg, 
and Saxony, were of this kind. There were other states 
where the prince granted a written constitution, somewhat 
after the French model, providing for an elective assembly 
to which was given some power over the government's pro- 
posals for taxes and laws. Such an assembly was not to con- 
trol the Government, as did the English Parliament, by forc- 
ing the ruler to choose his ministers from persons satisfac- 
tory to it. The prince was the government in every instance 
but he preferred to ask the co-operation of his people up to 
a certain point, and he granted them rights, such as free- 



CONSTITUTIONS IN THE MINOR STATES 37 

dom of the press and of speech, which were coming to be 
more and more demanded by Europeans generally. Saxe- 
Weimar was the most prominent state of this class. Its 
prince received the sincere laudation of the Liberals and the 
sincere aversion of Metternich. 

In none of these systems was the principle of popular Popular 
sovereignty recognized. Germany was thoroughly monarch- 
ical. The only question was whether monarchy should recognized, 
undergo a change of nature more or less extensive, or should 
assert its old prerogatives in all their fulness. After the 
disappointments of the Vienna Congress the Liberals of Ger- 
many pinned their hope to the increase of states of the Saxe- 
Weimar class. It was clear that Germans were not to have 
unity. Might they not have political and civil liberty? 
There seemed some ground for optimism. Constitutions were Constitu- 

eranted in the states of southern Germany in the next "°"^ 

... granted m 
few years, in Bavaria and Baden in 1818, m Wiirtemberg in certain 

1819, and in Hesse-Darmstadt in 1820. It matters not states. 

whether the princes granted these for selfish reasons in order 

to gain popular support for a struggle which they felt was 

imminent with their more powerful colleagues, Prussia and 

Austria, for the advantage to their peoples remained the 

same. 

But it soon became evident after 1815 that while there 

were signs of progress there were more signs of a menacing 

reaction. Austria having set her house in order, having put 

a Chinese wall about her empire, marked innovation in the 

neighboring lands for special hostility when the favorable 

moment should arrive. Metternich's programme was stated 

in one of his confidential reports to his Emperor : " We must 

lead Germany to adopt our principles without our appearing 

to impose those principles upon her." This could not be 

done abruptly and harshly. Two personages were too 

powerful to be treated summarily, Alexander I of Russia and 

Frederick William HI of Prussia. The former was in 1815 

(nothing less than a " Jacobin " in Metternich's opinion, as 



38 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

he was himself granting a constitution to Poland and favor- 
ing constitutionalism in Germany and Italy and elsewhere. 
Reaction could not be successful unless he should come to see 
The King the error of his ways. The King of Prussia had promised 
of Prussia g^ constitution to his country as exphcitly as a man could. 
.. Metternich was pre-eminently a man who knew how to bide 

his time, and who knew how, when the proper moment arrived, 
to strike hard. His time was not long in coming. Fred- 
erick William III was both procrastinating and timid. 
Moreover, the reactionary party shortly after 1815 won 
ascendency at his court. Two years went by before he ap- 
pointed the special committee to undertake the preparation 
of the promised constitution. Its report after a long and 
slow investigation was unfavorable to the project, which was 
finally allowed to drop. The Prussian Government slipped 
back easily into the old familiar autocratic grooves. Ac- 
cording to Metternich the king's chief mental trait was " the 
repressive," and this gradually reasserted itself. More im- 
portant was the change in Alexander I, who by 1818, for 
reasons that are somewhat obscure, had gone over to con- 
servatism. With the rulers of Russia and Prussia in this 
state of mind Metternich's course was made easy. He was 
able to use certain current events to render himself incon- 
testably the dominant personality in Europe, and to secure 
the prevalence of the Austrian principles of government far 
beyond the confines of Austria itself. 
Indignation The years immediately succeeding 1815 were years of rest- 
of the lessness and uncertainty. The German Liberals were, as we 

have seen, indignant at the " great deception " of Vienna. 
But they hoped that at least the various states of Germany 
might be reformed along constitutional lines. Article XIII 
of the Federal Act rendered this possible, though it did not, 
to their great regret, ensure it. Here again was hope de- 
ferred, for as the years went by the signs that little had been 
gained in the direction of larger liberty multiplied. Only a 
few states entered the new path. The large ones stood aloof. 



THE BURSCHENSCHAFT 39 

and in many of the small ones the old regime was restored in 
its entirety by the returning princes and with a lamentable 
lack of humor. The disappointment of Liberals was intense, 
their criticism trenchant. The chief seat of disaffection was 
found in the universities and in newspapers edited by uni- 
versity men. As the subjection of these centers of agitation 
was to be the main object of Metternich's German policy, it 
is well to describe their activity. 

The students of Jena had during the Napoleonic wars Ferment 
founded a society called the Burschenschaft, whose purpose ^^ *^^ ^^^' 
was the inculcation of an intense national patriotism, the 
constant exaltation of the ideal of a common fatherland. 
Societies were nothing new in German universities, but the 
previous ones, the Corps, had included in their membersliip 
only those coming from the same state or province. They 
thus preserved that sense of localism which was the bane of 
German life. The Burschenschaft was based on the opposite 
principle of membership derived from all the different states, 
thus ignoring local lines, and teaching a larger duty, a 
larger devotion, a larger idea of association. Glowing pa- 
triotism was the characteristic of the new organization. It 
soon succeeded in establishing chapters in sixteen universities. 
It was decided to hold a meeting of representatives of all 
the chapters and to give it the character of a patriotic cele- The 

bration. The place chosen was the Wartburg;, a castle famous "^^^^tburg 

Festival 
as the shelter of Luther after his outlawry at the Diet of 

Worms, and the date chosen was October 18, 1817, famous as 
being the fourth anniversary of the battle of Leipsic, and ap- 
proximately the three hundredth of the posting of Luther's 
Theses. Several hundred students met. Their festival was 
religious as well as patriotic. They partook of the Lord's 
Supper together and listened to impassioned speeches com- 
memorating the great moments in German history, the libera- 
tion from Rome and the liberation from Napoleon. In the 
evening they built a bonfire and threw into it various symbols 
of the hated reaction, notably an illiberal pamphlet of which 



40 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 



the King of Prussia had expressed his approval. They then 
dispersed, but their deed hved after them. This student 
performance had unexpected consequences. What was ap- 
parently a harmless and exuberant jollification seemed to 
conservative rulers and statesmen evidence of an unhealthy 
and dangerous ferment of opinion, and the rumors that 
gained currency about this celebration made it famous. It 
enjoyed a reputation altogether out of proportion to its real 
importance, which was slight. Mettemich described it to the 
German rulers as a portent of far greater dangers sure to 
come. Shortly an event much more alarming occurred which 
The murder seemed to justify this prognostication, the murder of Kotze- 
of Kotzebue. b^g, a journalist and playwright, who was hated by the 
students as a spy of Russia in Germany. A divinity student, 
Karl Sand, went to his house in Mannheim and stabbed him 
in the heart, March 23, 1819. Later an attempt was made 
to assassinate an important official of the Government of 
Nassau. These and other occurrences played perfectly into 
the hands of Metternich, who was seeking the means of 
establishing reaction in Germany as it had been established 
in Austria. They gave him what he most needed, a weapon 
whereby to dissuade Alexander I and Frederick William III 
from all further toying with liberalism and to convert the 
Holy Alliance, hitherto a mere trumpet for biblical phrases, 
into an engine of oppression. Were not all of these occur- 
rences manifestations of the same anarchical spirit, the de- 
sire to overthrow monarchical institutions.? All were in- 
discriminately ascribed to the Burschenschaft, whereas it 
had only been responsible for the Wartburg festival. The 
steps now taken to combat liberalism, which was charged with 
such unequal misdeeds, form a landmark in German history. 
Metternich, having previously had an interview with Fred- 
erick William III, in which he was assured of the latter's sup- 
port in the policy to be outlined to silence the opposition, 
called the ministers of those German governments of which 
he felt sure to a series of conferences at Carlsbad. In these 



The Holy 
Alliance 
converted 
into an 
engine of 
oppression 



THE CARLSBAD DECREES 41 

conferences was fashioned the triumph of reaction in Ger- 
many. By the decrees which were adopted Metternich became 
the conqueror of the Confederation. Only eight states were 
represented, those upon which Metternich could count. The The 

decrees there drawn up were then submitted to the Diet Carlsbad 

decrees 
at Frankfort, all the customary modes of procedure of that 

body were cast aside, and a vote with no preceding debate was 
forced, so that the representatives of the states who had not 
been at Carlsbad did not have time to ask instructions of 
their Governments. Thus the decrees, rushed by illegal and 
violent methods through the Diet, became the law of Ger- 
many, binding upon every state. They were the work of 
Austria, seconded by Prussia. The small states resented the 
indignity to which they had been subjected but could do 
nothing. Carlsbad signifies in German history the suppres- 
sion of liberty for a generation. As these decrees really 
determined the political system of Germany until 1848, they 
merit a full description. 

It was stated once for all that the famous Article XIII of Provision 

the act estabhshine: the German Confederation, namely, that concerning 

-n , constitu- 
" a constitution based upon the system of estates will be tional gov- 

established in all the states of the union " should not be inter- ernment. 

preted as meaning constitutions of a foreign pattern, but 

representation of estates such as had been customary in 

German states even earlier. It was the earnest desire of the 

Liberals to get away from such old and useless assemblies. 

The great forces active against the prevalence of Met- 

ternich's system were free parliaments, free speech, and a 

free press. It was hoped that the first of these was thus 

prevented. 

It was next provided that there should be at every uni- Control of 

versity in the land a special representative to watch both *^^ ^^^' 

versities. 
professors and students. The function of these agents 

should be " to see to the strictest enforcement of existing 

laws and disciplinary regulations ; to observe carefully the 

spirit which is shown by the instructors in the university in 



42 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

their public lectures and regular courses, and, without di- 
rectly interfering in scientific matters, or in the methods of 
teaching, to give a salutary direction to the instruction, 
having in view the future attitude of the students." It was 
provided that all teachers who should " propagate harmful 
doctrines hostile to public order or subversive of existing 
governmental institutions," that is, all who should not hold 
absolutism, as Metternich understood it, to be the only legi- 
timate form of government, should be removed from their 
positions and that once so removed they should not be ap- 
pointed to positions in any other educational institution in 
Prohibition any state. Other provisions were directed against secret or 

. ^. unauthorized societies in the universities, particularly that 

societies. , . . . 5> 

" association established some years since under the name 

of the Burschenschaft, " since the very conception of the 
society implies the utterly unallowable plan of permanent 
fellowship and constant communication between the various 
universities." Furthermore "no student, who shall be ex- 
pelled from a university by a decision of the University 
Senate which was ratified or prompted by the agent of the 
government, or who shall have left the institution in order 
to escape such a decision, shall be received in any other 
university." ^ 
The By these provisions it was expected that the entire 

censorship academic community, professors and students, would be re- 
of the press, ^jy^g^ ^q silence. The universities had become the centers of 
political agitation. That agitation would now cease under 
compulsion. There was one other enemy, the press, and 
drastic provisions were adopted to smother its independence 
beneath a comprehensive censorship. Finally, a special 
commission was created to ferret out all secret revolutionary 
societies and conspiracies that might threaten the nation, 
and this commission was to have full powers to examine 
and arrest any German, no matter of what state he might 

^ Quotations are from University of Pennsylvania Translations and Re- 
prints, Vol. I, No. 3. Edited by J. H. Robinson. 



THE PERSECUTION OF THE LIBERALS 43 

be a citizen. It discovered very little, but it pursued for 
years a policy as vexatious as it was petty. 

The Carlsbad Conference is an important turning point Reaction 
in the history of central Europe. It signalized the domi- *^® oTier of 
nance of Mettemich in Germany as well as in Austria. Its Germany, 
most important feature is the surrender of Prussia to 
Austrian leadership. Down to 1819 there was ground for 
hope that Prussia might be a leader, though a cautious one, 
in the liberahzation of Germany. That hope now vanished. 
Reaction was henceforth the order of the day in this great 
state. Frederick William III. shortly abandoned definitely 
all idea of granting the constitution which he had promised in 
1815. In the period of national humiliation from 1807 to 
1813 a notably liberal spirit had characterized the actions 
of the Prussian Government. Many reforms had been ef- 
fected at the instigation of such men as Stein. But the period 
was too brief and the reforms remained incomplete. It was 
expected that they would be perfected after 1815, but now 
it was clear that they would not. Indeed, in some respects, 
though fortunately not in all, the liberal achievements of 
those years were curtailed. But after 1819 the period of full 
reaction came in. In many respects this period was more 
odious in Prussia than in any other state. The persecu- The 
tion of " demagogues " was a sorry spectacle, as it was persecution 
in reality largely a persecution of men who should have 
had all honor shown them as national heroes. Jahn, the 
founder of gymnastic societies, whch had been most effective 
in nerving the young men of Prussia to heroic action, was 
for five years subjected to the inquisition of the police and 
to severe imprisonment, only to be discharged because nothing 
could be found against him meriting punishment. Arndt, 
whose impassioned poems had intensified the national patriot- 
ism in the wars against Napoleon, was shamefully treated. 
His house was searched, his papers were ransacked. The 
charges against him show the triviality of this petty police 
inquisition. One official discovered revolution in the expres- 



44 REACTION IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY 

sion " that lies beyond my sphere." Sphere meant a ball, a 
ball a bullet. Was not that a summons to insurrection and 
murder .P Arndt indignantly protested that he hated " all 
secret intrigues like snakes of hell." Nevertheless he was 
removed from his professorship and for twenty years was pre- 
vented from pursuing his vocation. Private letters were sys- 
tematically opened by the police in the search for some trace 
of revolution. Even Gneisenau, despite his brilliant record 
as a soldier, had for years to experience this invasion of 
his private rights. Spies went to hear the sermons of the 
most popular preacher in Berlin, Schleiermacher, and re- 
ported it as a highly suspicious circumstance that he had 
said that we owe to Christ the liberation of all spiritual 
forces and that every true Christian must believe that the 
kingdom of truth will conquer the kingdom of darkness. A 
publisher was forbidden to bring out a new edition of Fichte's 
Address to the German Nation, which had so splendidly stirred 
the youth of Prussia in the years of Napoleon's supremacy. 
Prussia This was, in the opinion of all Liberals, the great treason 

a docile ^f Prussia, this abdication of independent judgment, this 
. , . docile surrender to the leadership of Austria. " Prussia," 

said Metternich to the Russian ambassador, " has left us the 
place which many Germans wished to give to her." 

The situation was much the same in the other German 
states. With Austria and Prussia hand in glove, there was 
little opportunity for the lesser states. The spirit of the 
Carlsbad Decrees hung heavily over all Germany. Made 
even stronger the following year by the Vienna Conference 
of 1820, this system remained in force until the decade 
beginning with 1840. The revolutions of 1830 brought 
forth additional decrees in 1832 and 1834 intensifying the 
persecution of the academic world and of politicians sus- 
pected of liberalism. Metternich had succeeded in extending 
his system over the German Confederation. We shall now 
see how other countries were affected by the same system, 
how its influence expanded still further. 



CHAPTER III 

REACTION AND REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND 

ITALY 

SPAIN 

The fundamental purpose of the rulers of Europe after 
1815, as we have seen, was to prevent the " revolution," as 
they called it, from again breaking out; in other words, to 
prevent democratic and constitutional ideas from once more 
becoming dominant. The precautions taken by these con- 
servatives passed in the political language of the time as 
the Metternich system. Sufficient precautions had been 
taken, as we have seen, in central Europe. France was 
powerless to disturb for a long while to come. England was 
stiffly loyal to her old regime. But just as order seemed 
sohdly re-established events occurred in the two southern 
peninsulas of Europe, Spain and Italy, which showed that 
a system of repression to be successful must be Argus-eyed 
and omnipresent. It is necessary, therefore, at this point 
to trace briefly the history of southern Europe that we may 
understand the events of 1820, the first real challenge of 
the Metternich system. 

In 1808 Napoleon had by an act of violence seized the Spanish 
crown of Spain, and until 1814 had kept the Spanish king, Constitution 
Ferdinand VII, virtually a prisoner in France, placing his 
own brother Joseph on the vacant throne. The Spaniards 
rose against the usurper and for years carried on a vigorous 
guerilla warfare, aided by the English, and ending finally 
in success. As their king was in the hands of the enemy 
they proceeded in his name to frame a government. Being 
liberally minded they drew up a constitution, the famous 

45 



46 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

Constitution of 1812, a document thoroughly saturated 
with the principles of the French Constitution of 1791. It 
asserted the sovereignty of the people, vesting the execu- 
tive power in the king, the legislative in the Cortes or Assem- 
bly, a body consisting of a single chamber and elected by 
indirect universal suffrage, the citizens of the colonies having 
the same right to vote as did those of the mother country. 
Some of the features of the French Constitution which had 
worked badly were nevertheless adopted. Deputies were to 
be chosen for two years and to be ineligible for re-election. 
Ministers might not be members of the chamber. Henceforth 
the Cortes were to be the central organ of government, the 
king being very subordinate. He might not leave the 
country without their consent, nor marry, nor might he 
dissolve or prorogue the Assembly, and in the intervals be- 
tween sessions a committee of the Cortes was to watch over 
the execution of the Constitution and the laws. The Consti- 
tution proclaimed the principles of liberty and equality 
before the law, thus abolishing the old regime. The extreme 
liberality of this Constitution is explained by the fact that 
it was the work of deputies coming in the main from the coast 
provinces, which were more democratic than the others. The 
classes hitherto dominant in Spain, the nobility and the 
clergy, for the time being lost their supremacy. The Con- 
stitution was the work of a small minority, was never sub- 
mitted to the people for ratification, and its durability was 
Ferdinand therefore problematical. Indeed, its doom was sealed by the 
^^' reappearance in Spain, on the downfall of Napoleon, of the 

legitimate king, Ferdinand VII. 

This prince, now restored to his throne, was ill-fitted for 
rule, both by temperament and training. Cruel, suspicious, 
deceitful, unscrupulous, his character was odious, his intel- 
lect lacked all distinction. His education had been woe- 
fully neglected, nor had experience taught him anything of 
statesmanship. He had not used his leisure as Napoleon's 
prisoner for reading or the study of political questions. 



REACTION IN SPAIN 47 

But, instead, he had embroidered with his own hands a robe 
of white silk with ornaments of gold for the Madonna of the 
altar in the church at Valen9ay, a fact which was made known 
to the Spanish people by his confessor. Indeed, the pamphlet 
which contained this edifying announcement went through 
seven editions in a short time, — a fact that not only paints 
the King but his people as well. 

There was every reason to expect that such a man would Abolition 
thrust aside the paper constitution that so greatly limited °^ *^^ 
his power, if he felt able to do so. The boundlessly enthusi- , . 
astic, even hysterical manner in which the Spaniards re- 
ceived him convinced him that he could go to any length. 
The Constitution of 1812 had the support of only a very 
small minority of the educated people. The nobility, the 
clergy, many of the leaders of the army, and the ignorant 
and fanatical populace wanted a king of the old type. The 
King, seeing the way made plain, promptly took action. Be- 
fore he reached his capital he declared the Constitution and 
the decrees of the Cortes null and void, " as if these things 
had never been done." By this stroke and the rapturous 
acquiescence of the people absolutism was restored. A 
furious reaction began, a wild hunt for everyone in any 
way connected with the recent history of Spain. Liberals Persecution 
and those who had adhered to Joseph, Napoleon's brother, I-iberals. 
were persecuted. The Inquisition was re-established; the 
Jesuits returned in triumph. The press was gagged once 
more. Liberal books were destroyed wherever found, and 
particularly all copies of the Constitution. Thousands of 
political prisoners were punished with varying severity. 
Ferdinand would probably have been forced into a re- 
actionary policy by his own people and by the other powers of 
Europe, even had his personal inclinations not prompted him 
to it. But this reaction was much too furious, lasted too 

long, and in the end weakened the King's position. 

. Inefficiency 

The Government of Ferdinand, vigorous in punishing Lib- ^^ ^^^ q^^. 

erals, was utterly incompetent and indolent in other matters, ernment. 



48 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

Spain, a country of about eleven million people, was wretch- 
edly poor and ignorant. Agriculture was primitive. Com- 
merce and industry were shackled by monopolies and un- 
reasonable prohibitions upon exportation and importation. 
Industrial activity was further lesssened by the large num- 
ber of saints' days, which were carefully observed. What 
education there was was in the hands of ecclesiastics. The 
Government of Ferdinand made no attempt to improve these 
deplorable conditions. But in addition to all this it failed 
to discharge the most fundamental duty of any government, 
that is, to preserve the integrity of the empire. The vast 
Disintegra- transatlantic possessions of Spain had risen in revolt. The 

ion e pgg^gQj^g fQY ^-}^jg revolt, which presaged the downfall of the 
Spanish . . . , . . 

Empire. proud Spanish Empire, were: the contmued and varied mis- 
government of the home country which regarded the colonies 
as simply sources of wealth to be ingeniously exploited for 
the benefit of the home government, the taste of relative 
freedom they had enjoyed between 1810 and 1815 when the 
home government was otherwise occupied, the example of the 
United States and its successful war of independence, and 
the encouragement of England, seeking wider markets. 
Ferdinand could probably have kept his empire intact had 
he been willing to make the concessions demanded by the 
Americans, larger commercial liberty and considerable 
political autonomy. This he would not do. He would rule 
his empire as it had always been ruled, his colonies as he 
ruled the mother country. The result was revolution from 
Mexico to the southern tip of South America. Ferdinand's 
task was to reconquer this vast region by force. This force 
he did not have. He hoped for the support of the Holy 
Alliance, which, however, was not forthcoming. He, there- 
fore, was thrown upon his own resources. By 1819 he had 
collected an army of over twenty thousand men at Cadiz. 
Suddenly the army rose in revolt against the Government, 
and the first of those revolutions of southern Europe against 
the restored monarchs occurred. 



GROWTH OF THE REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT 49 

With singular lack of perspicacity, the restored Bourbons Neglect of 
of Spain had neglected or insulted the anny, the very ® army 

3.11(1 lIX6 

weapon which reaction in the other countries of Europe navy, 
had taken every means to conciliate and win. Many of the 
ablest officers had been degraded ; poor rations, poor bar- 
racks, insufficient pay, in arrears at that, had created a feel- 
ing of deep irritation in the army, which became the breeding 
place of conspiracies, the real revolutionary element in the 
state. The navy, too, so essential for the preservation of 
a transoceanic colonial empire, had been allowed to fall into 
the most shameful decay until it consisted of but little 
else than the king's own pleasure yachts. The officers were 
utterly poor. The only relief the Government granted them 
was permission to support themselves by fishing. 

Under such conditions military outbreaks were natural. 
Insurrections occurred repeatedly, in 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 
1818 and 1819. The failure in each case only increased the 
severity with which the Government pursued all those sus- 
pected of liberalism. In 1820 the army rose again, driven 
to desperation by the stories of horror told by soldiers re- 
turning from America, and believing that they were about 
to be sent to certain death. 

On January 1, 1820, Riego, a colonel in the army, pro- Revolution 
claimed the Constitution of 1812 and led a few troops °^ ^820. 
through the province of Andalusia, endeavoring to arouse 
the south of Spain. He was unsuccessful. His force grad- 
ually dwindled away, attracting no popular support. But 
it had served its purpose. As the revolution was dying out 
in the south it kindled in the opposite end of the peninsula, 
under the Pyrenees and along the Ebro. The Constitution 
of 1812 was proclaimed there and the flames spread eastward 
to the great cities of Saragossa and Barcelona. Shortly 
riots broke out in Madrid itself. The King, learning that 
he could not rely upon his soldiers even in his capital, and 
thoroughly frightened, yielded to the demands of the scat- 
tered and incoherent revolution, and on the evening of 



50 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

March 7, 1820, proclaimed the Constitution of 1812, prom- 
ised to maintain it, and declared that he would harry out of 
the country those who would not support it. " Let us ad- 
vance frankly," he said, " myself leading the way, along the 
constitutional path." The text of the Constitution was 
posted in every city, and parish priests were ordered to 
expound it to their congregations. 

Thus revolution had triumphed again, and only five years 
after Waterloo. An absolute monarchy, based on divine 
right, had been changed into a constitutional monarchy based 
on the sovereignty of the people. Would the example be 
followed elsewhere.'' Would the Holy Alliance look on in 
silence .'^ Had the revolutionary spirit been so carefully 
smothered in Austria, Germany, and France, only to blaze 
forth in outlying sections of Europe? Answers to these 
questions were quickly forthcoming. 

ITALY 

Napoleon on In the leisure of St. Helena, Napoleon I wrote, concern- 
^^^^ ing Italy : " Italy is surrounded by the Alps and the sea. 

Her natural limits are defined with as much exactitude as 
if she were an island. Italy is only united to the continent 
by one hundred and fifty leagues of frontier and these one 
hundred and fifty leagues are fortified by the highest barrier 
that can be opposed to man. Italy, isolated between her 
natural limits, is destined to form a great and powerful 
nation. Italy is one nation ; unity of language, customs 
and literature, must, within a period more or less distant, 
unite her inhabitants under one sole government. And 
Rome will, without the slightest doubt, be chosen by the 
Italians as their capital." ^ 

Napoleon was now in a position where he was powerless 
to aid in this achievement, even had he been so disposed. But 
the time was very fresh in men's minds when they believed 
that the great commander was to use his talent and oppor- 

^ Cesaresco, The Liberation of Italy, 3. 



NAPOLEON'S INFLUENCE UPON ITALY 51 

tunity to give them unity and freedom. He had not done so. 

Yet in a very real sense modern Italy began under his empire. 

He took the country a long step forward toward its ideal. 

Napoleon's activity in Italy had been most revolutionary. Significance 

He had driven all the native princes from the peninsula. ° ^^°* 

, , . . . , 7 Icon's 

Only the kings of Naples and Piedmont still retained some activity in 

semblance of authority, for each fortunately had an island Italy, 
to which he could flee, whence the French could not drive 
him, as the British controlled the sea. The former spent 
several years in Sicily, the latter in the island of Sardinia. 
Napoleon did not formally unite all Italy, but he annexed 
a part directly to the French Empire, a part he made into the 
Kingdom of Italy, with himself as King and his step-son, 
Eugene Beauharnais, as Viceroy, and the remainder consti- 
tuted the Kingdom of Naples, over which Murat, brother-in- 
law of Napoleon, ruled. Thus, though there was not unity, 
there were only three states where formerly there had been a 
dozen. Yet, in an important sense, there was unity, for it 
was the directingmind of the French Emperor that permeated 
and largely controlled the policy of all three. The French did 
much for the regeneration of Italy. They abolished feudalism, 
they gave uniform and enlightened laws, they opened careers The 
to talent, they stimulated industry. New ideas, political and a"«^3,kening 
social, penetrated the peninsula with them. Italians hence- 
forth would never be the same as they had been. Barriers, 
physical, material, intellectual, had been thrown down, and 
could never be permanently set up again. Of course there 
was the reverse. The burdens imposed in the place of those 
removed were heavy. Napoleon made the Italians a part 
of his general European system and forced them to give 
freely of their money and their men for purposes that con- 
cerned them only slightly, if at all. Sixty thousand Italians 
perished in his wars in Spain and Russia. His shameless 
robbery of their works of art gave deep offense. His treat- 
ment of the Pope wounded many in their religious sensibilities, 
and he ignored the national sentiment whenever he chose. 



52 



REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 



Yet the later achievement of unity and liberty was made 
much easier because Napoleon had passed that way. He 
shook the country out of its century-old somnolence. Serv- 
ice in his armies increased the strenuousness of the Italians 
and taught them the art of war. The very fact that they 
had witnessed and participated in great events imparted an 
unknown energy to these easy-going sons of the south. 
Napoleon had exiled every one of the Italian princes. They 
might be restored, but their prestige was irrevocably gone. 
He had even driven the Pope from his states, and had 
abolished the temporal power. What had been done once 
might perhaps be done again. There had been for a few 
years a state bearing the name Kingdom of Italy. The 
memory of that fact could not be uprooted by all the mon- 
archs of Christendom. It was an augury full of hope, a 
beacon pointing the sure and steadfast way. 
The decision Of all this the Allies, at their famous Congress of Vienna, 
took no note. They were playing the short politics of the 
hour. They paid no attention to the impalpable forces of 
the human spirit. They looked upon the future of Italy 
as a matter quite at their disposal and they reconstructed 
the peninsula without asking its opinion or consent. A 
people numbering more than seventeen million had nothing 
to say about its own fate. The mighty men of Europe 
sitting in Vienna considered that their affair. And they 
arranged it by returning Italy to the state of a geograph- 
ical expression. They did not give it even as much unity 
as they gave Germany, not even that of a loose confedera- 
tion. They made short shrift of all such suggestions and 
restored most of the old states. There were henceforth ten 
of them : Piedmont, Lombardy-Venetia, Parma, Modena, 
Lucca, Tuscany, the Papal States, Naples, Monaco, and San 
Marino. Genoa and Venice, until recently independent re- 
publics, were not restored, as republics were not " fashion- 
able." The one was given to Piedmont, the other to Austria. 
These states were too small to be self-sufficient, and as 



of the 

Congress of 
Vienna. 



The ten 

Italian 

states. 



XMhanl Pass jq 

I 



Lonffi/ufftr £ast j2 from i 




Scale of EiigUsh MUis 

20 'M 60 SO ICO 



ICffa ofSardmia 

Akxiena 

Zuccay 

Ikscarfyy 

K'g'd efffie TwuSi^Uies. 



Favigiian 
Mcrsa 







AUSTRIA DOMINATES ITALY 53 

a result Italy was for nearly fifty years the sport of for- 
eign powers, dependent, henceforth, not upon France but 
upon Austria. This is the cardinal fact in the situation and 
is an evidence, as it is a partial cause, of the commanding 
position of the Austrian monarchy after the fall of Napo- The domi- 
leon. Austria was given outright the richest part of the Po ^ance of 
valley as a Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. Austrian princes 
or princesses ruled over Modena, Parma, and Tuscany, and 
were easily brought into the Austrian system. Thus was 
Austria the master of northern Italy; master of southern 
Italy, too, for Ferdinand, King of Naples, made an offensive 
and defensive treaty with Austria, pledging himself to 
make no separate alliances and to grant no liberties to his 
subjects beyond those which obtained in Lombardy and 
Venetia. Naples was thus but a satellite in the great Austrian 
system. The King of Piedmont and the Pope were the only 
Italian princes at all likely to be intractable. And Austria's 
strength in comparison with theirs was that of a giant 
compared with that of a pigmy. 

Thus the restoration was accomplished. Italy became 
again a collection of small states, largely under the domi- 
nance of Austria. Each of the restored princes was an 
absolute monarch. In none of the states was there a parlia- 
ment. Italy had neither unity nor constitutional forms, 
nor any semblance of popular participation in the govern- 
ment. The use which the princes made of their unfettered 
liberty of action was significant. 

Of these several states the four most important were: 
the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom, the Kingdom of Sardinia 
or Piedmont, the Papal States, and the Kingdom of Naples. 

The first was ruled by a viceroy, who carried out orders The 
received from Vienna. It paid into the Austrian treasury I'ombardo- 
taxes far out of proportion to its population or its extent. „. , 
Here French laws were largely abrogated, and an attempt 
was made to make the people forget that they were Italians, 
and to consider themselves Austrians. Children were taught 



54 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

in their text-books of geography that Lombardy and Venetia 
were geographically a part of Austria. Industries were 
repressed in favor of Austrian manufacturers. Austrians 
were appointed to the university professorships, and they and 
their students, as well as other persons, were watched by 
numerous and proficient spies. It was even considered nec- 
essary to edit Dante that he might be read with safety. 
^^® The King of Piedmont, Victor Emmanuel I, had been for 

Sard' • many years an exile in the island of Sardinia, and his states 

had been annexed by Napoleon to France. He returned 
to Turin enraged against the author of all his woes. Say- 
ing jokingly that he had slept fifteen years, he resolved that 
Piedmont should regard the interval as a dream. Most of 
the laws and institutions introduced by France were abol- 
ished by a stroke of the pen, almost the only ones retained 
being those which the Piedmontese would gladly have seen 
go, the heaviest taxes and the police system. Most of those 
connected with the government and the army during the 
French period were removed from their positions, thus con- 
stituting at the outset a disaffected class. Religious liberty 
was narrowly circumscribed; political liberty did not exist, 
nor did liberty of education. The universities were shortly 
placed under the control of the Jesuits, and professors and 
students were spied upon. Some of the deeds of reaction 
were so absurd as to become classical illustrations of the 
stupidity of the restored princes. Gas illumination of the 
Turin theater was abandoned because it had been introduced 
by the French. French plants in the Botanic Gardens of 
Turin were torn up, French furniture in the royal palaces 
destroyed, and a certain custom house official would let no 
merchandise be brought over the new Napoleonic road over 
the Mont Cenis pass, lest revolutionary ideas might thus 
be smuggled in. But, however unwise and retrogressive this 
government might be, it followed in foreign aifairs a policy 
of independence of Austrian influence as far as this was 
possible. Piedmont was a military state, having an army 



THE PAPAL STATES 55 

altogether disproportionate to its size. Indeed, three-fourths 
of the revenues of the state went to the support of the army 
and navy. 

The Papal States were peculiar among the governments The States 
of Europe. The Pope was their ruler. The Government °^ *^® 
was in the hands of the priests. Over each of the provinces 
and legations was a prelate. All the higher officials were of 
the clergy. The laity were admitted only to the lower 
positions. Taxes were high, yet papal finances were badly 
disorganized, and the Government had difficulty in meeting 
running expenses. An important source of income of this 
Christian, priestly state was the lottery, which was adminis- 
tered with religious ceremonies, and was even kept running 
Sundays. The Government could not even assure the per- 
sonal safety of its citizens. Brigandage was rife, and the Pope 
was forced finally to make a formal treaty with the brigands, 
by which they were to give themselves up as prisoners for 
a year, after which they were to be pensioned. Though 
bigoted and corrupt, the Government had a keen scent for 
the evils of the French regime. It repealed most of the 
French laws, and even forbade vaccination and gas illumina- 
tion, as odious reminders of that people. The police were 
numerous and vexatious, paying particular attention to what 
one of their documents characterized as " the class called 
thinkers." The Inquisition was restored and judicial torture 
revived. Education was controlled by the clergy. Even in 
the universities most of the professors were ecclesiastics and 
the curriculum was carefully purged of all that might be 
dangerous. This excluded, among other subjects, modern 
literature and political economy. Niebuhr, the German his- 
torian, thus recorded his impression of that state: " No land 
of Italy, perhaps of Europe, excepting Turkey, is ruled as is 
this ecclesiastical state." Rome was called " a city of ruins, 

both material and moral." 

Kingdom of 

In the south, covering three-eighths of the peninsula, the Two 
was the Kingdom of Naples, or the Two Sicilies. The king, Sicilies. 



56 



REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 



Universal 
reaction. 



The 
Carbonari. 



Ferdinand I, was of the Spanish Bourbon line. IJe was 
incredibly ignorant, and in character detestable. Return- 
ing from Sicily, however, he did not imitate his contempo- 
raries by aboHshing everything French. " Civil institu- 
tions," says a recent historian, " had advanced four cen- 
turies in the nine years of French rule." ^ But while in theory 
much of the work of those years was allowed to remain, in 
practice the Government was hopelessly corrupt. The King's 
treatment of the army was such as to raise up in it many 
enemies to his power. Many who had served under Murat 
were casliiered. Whipping was restored, which angered the 
common soldier. Thus there grew up rapidly a military 
faction ripe for revolt. 

Obviously the policy of the various princes, as just de- 
scribed, made many enemies : all the progressive elements of 
the population who believed in freedom in education, in relig- 
ion, in business, and who saw special privileges restored, 
obsolete commercial regulations revived, arbitrary and igno- 
rant government substituted for the freer and more intelH- 
gent administration of the French; and all those thrown out 
of employment in the civil service or the army. The malcon- 
tents joined the Carbonari, a secret society which first rose 
in the Kingdom of Naples, spreading thence over Italy and 
to other European countries. Their weapons were con- 
spiracy and insurrection. In a country where no parlia- 
ments, no political parties, no public agitation for political 
ends were permitted, such activity was necessarily driven 
into secret channels. The Carbonari had an elaborate but 
loose and ineffective organization. Their rules and forms 
were frequently childish and absurd. Their purposes were 
not clear or definite. They were a vast liberal organiza- 
tion much better adapted for spasmodic movements of de- 
struction than for the construction of new institutions. 
Into this society poured the dissatisfied of every class. It 
was a revolutionary leaven working in Italian society, spread- 

'■ King, History of Italian Unity, I, 87. 



REVOLUTION IN NAPLES 57 

ing abroad a hatred of the restored princes, a desire for 
change. 

Among a people living under such depressing conditions ^^^ 
the news of the successful and bloodless Spanish Revolution 
of 1820 spread quickly. It was the spark to the tinder, in Naples. 
In Naples a military insurrection broke out, of such apparent 
strength that the King yielded at once. The revolutionists 
demanded the Spanish Constitution of 1812, not because they 
knew much about it save that it was very democratic but be- 
cause it possessed the advantage of being ready-made. The 
King conceded the demand, saying that he would have been 
glad to have granted a constitution before had he only 
known there was a general desire for one. He was appar- 
ently as enthusiastic as were the revolutionists. He went out 
of his way to show this in a most extraordinary fashion. 
On July 13, 1820, having heard mass in the royal chapel, 
he approached the altar, took the oath, and then, fixing his 
eyes upon the cross, he added of his own accord, " Omni- 
potent God, who with infinite penetration lookest into the 
heart and into the future, if I lie, or if I should one day be 
faithless to my oath, do Thou at this instant annihilate 
me." It seemed as if the era of constitutional government 
had come for more than a third of Italy. 

THE CONGRESSES 

Thus in 1820 the Revolution, so hateful to the diplomats 
of 1815, had resumed the offensive. Spain and Naples had 
overthrown the regime that had been in force five years, 
and had adopted constitutions that were thoroughly saturated 
with the principles and mechanism of Revolutionary France. 
There had likewise been a revolution against the established 
regime in Portugal. There was shortly to be one in Pied- 
mont. 

A matter of greater importance than the attitude of 
these peoples toward their governments was that of the 
governments toward the peoples. The powers had united 



58 



REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 



The powers 
prepare to 
suppress 
these revo- 
lutions. 



The 

doctrine of 
the right 
of inter- 
vention. 



to put down Napoleon. They had then taken every precau- 
tion to check the activity of so-called French principles. 
They had been in the main successful, but now those principles 
were asserting themselves triumphantly in outlying parts of 
Europe. It had been thought that future trouble would 
come from France ; but, instead, it was coming from Spain 
and Italy. 

Metternich, the most influential personage in Europe, 
had very clear views of the requirements of the situation. 
" The malady," as he called it, the unrest of the times, was 
not local or peculiar to one part of Europe, to any single 
country. To suppress this malady the Great Coalition had 
been built up which, after endless suffering and sacrifice, 
had overcome it, though it had not extirpated it. What 
it had cost so much to check, must be kept in check. The 
vitality of these subversive revolutionary principles was evi- 
dent to all. Energetic measures were necessary and, to be 
successful, they must be applied everywhere and at all times. 
If a monarch in one state yielded to revolution the effects 
were not limited to that state or that monarch, but the 
revolutionary parties everywhere were encouraged and the 
stability of every throne, of the established order everywhere, 
was threatened. This was conspicuously shown by the recent 
events. A revolution in Spain encourages a revolution in 
Naples. The movement may spread northward sympa- 
thetically, may reach the Italian possessions of Austria, may 
reach Austria itself, France, and the other countries, and the 
world, supposed to have been quieted at Vienna, will riot 
once more in anarchy. Metternich thus showed that no state 
can in the modern age lead an isolated life. The life of 
Europe henceforth must be collective and anything that 
threatens its peace is a very proper subject for the dis- 
cussion of Europe, collected in congresses. 

Metternich in this way developed the doctrine of the " right 
of intervention," a doctrine new in international law, yet 
one to which he succeeded in giving great vitality for many 



THE CONGRESSES 59 

years. The doctrine was that, as modern Europe was based 
upon opposition to revolution, the powers had the right 
and were in duty bound to intervene to put down revolution 
not only in their own states respectively but in any state 
of Europe, against the will of the people of that state, even 
against the will of the sovereign of that state, in the inter- 
ests of the established monarchical order. A change of 
government within a given state was not a domestic but 
an international affair. 

This doctrine did not originate in 1820. The principle The Coa- 
was clearly laid down in the treaty of Quadruple Alliance S^^^^ °^ 
of 1815 as far as France was concerned. It had been chapelle 
elaborated at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. 1818. 
There the five Great Powers had declared their purpose to 
maintain the general peace which was " founded on a 
religious respect for the engagements contained in the 
Treaties, and for the whole of the rights resulting therefrom." 
The phrase was vague because the powers could not agree 
on anything more definite. How much did it mean or might 
it be made to mean.'' Would revolutionary movements in any 
country be considered as justifying intervention in the in- 
terests of the sacred treaties.'' The opportunity to test the 
matter had now arisen. Metternich, as usual, was quite equal 
to the occasion. A congress was called at Troppau to consider The Con- 
the affairs of the Kingdom of Naples. Austria, Russia, Prus- S^^^^ °^ 
sia, France, and England were represented. Unanimity was .q^q ' 
lacking but there was a majority for the ominous principle. 
The three eastern powers, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, 
absolute monarchies, now formally accepted the principle 
of intervention as laid down by Metternich. They would 
refuse to recognize as legal changes brought about in any 
state by revolution, even if the king of that state himself 
consented. They asserted their right to intervene to over- 
throw any such changes, first by using concihatory methods, 
then by using force. This probably meant an immediate 
armed intervention wherever and whsnever revolution might 



60 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

break out. And the right so to intervene was held to be 
implicit in the treaties of 1815 on which the European 
system rested. From this view England dissented vigorously, 
declaring that in her opinion the powers by those treaties 
intended to guarantee to each other only their territorial 
possessions, not at all their form of government. That 
was a domestic concern. England and France, though 
not signing the new declaration, remained, however, 
merely passive and the absolute monarchies had their 
way. 
The Con- Having established the principle the Congress next de- 

I cided to apply it to the Kingdom of Naples. They accord- 

1821. ii^gly adjourned to Laibach, inviting the King of Naples to 

meet them there. The Neapolitan Parliament was opposed 
to letting him leave the kingdom and only finally consented 
after he had again sworn to the constitution, and had with 
facile duplicity declared that he wished to go solely to inter- 
cede for his people and " to obtain the sanction of the powers 
for the newly acquired liberties." Falsehoods with Ferdinand 
I were redundant and superfluous. " I declare to you," he 
said, " and to my nation that I will do everything to leave my 
people in the possession of a wise and free constitution." 
Parliament, deceived by the royal mendacity, permitted him 
to go. No sooner was he out of his realm than he retracted 
all his promises and oaths and appealed to the Allies to 
restore him to absolute power, which was precisely what 
they had already determined to do. Austria was commis- 
sioned to send an army into the kingdom. It did so. The 
opposition of the Neapolitans was ineffective and Ferdinand 
was restored to absolutism by foreigners in 1821. He broke 
his return journey at Florence in order to make the amende 
honorable to a probably outraged Deity by placing a votive 
lamp in the Church of the Annunciation. 

The political results were for the Neapolitans most de- 
plorable. The reaction that ensued was unrestrained. Hun- 
dreds were imprisoned, exiled, executed. Arbitrary govern- 



REVOLUTION IN PIEDMONT 61 

ment of the worst kind was henceforth meted out to this 
unfortunate kingdom. 

Just as this Neapolitan revolution was being snuffed out 
an insurrection blazed forth at the opposite end of the 
peninsula, in Piedmont. The causes of this movement were 
discontent at the stupid reaction of the last five years, the 
desire for constitutional government, and dislike of Austria. 
The insurgents were led to believe that they would have the 
support of Charles Albert, Prince of Carignan, head of a 
younger branch of the royal family and heir presumptive 
to the crown, as his relations with Liberals were known to 
be intimate. His political importance was considered great 
owing to his nearness to the throne. As the king, Victor 
Emmanuel I, had no son, the crown would upon his death pass 
to his brother, Charles Felix, and upon the latter's death, 
he, too, being without direct heir, Charles Albert would him- 
self become king. 

The Piedmontese revolution broke out in Alessandria on The 
March 10, 1821. The revolutionists demanded the Spanish Revolution 
Constitution and war against Austria as the great enemy p- ^ + 
of Piedmont and of Italy. The King wavered for several 
days. He did not wish a civil war, Piedmontese fighting 
Piedmontese, which would surely come if he should refuse 
the demands and attempt to put down the movement. On 
the other hand, he knew that if he should grant those demands, 
the powers would intervene to suppress constitutionalism 
here as they had done in Naples and his promises would have 
been in vain. Unable to decide between the cruel alternatives 
of civil war or foreign intervention and conquest, and dis- 
covering no other course to follow, he abdicated on March 
13, in favor of his brother Charles Felix. As the latter 
was not in Piedmont at the time, Charles Albert was ap- 
pointed regent, until his arrival. Charles Albert, therefore, 
exercised the royal power for the moment and in a manner 
favorable to the revolutionists. He allowed the Spanish 
Constitution to be proclaimed from the royal palace in Turin 



62 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

"with such modifications as His Majesty, in agreement 

with the national representation, shall consider advisable." 

The new King shortly disavowed these concessions. The 

whole imbroglio was cut short by the action of the powers. 

An Austrian army was already on the borders and a hundred 

thousand Russians were ordered forward from Galicia. The 

revolutionists clashed at Novara with an army composed 

of Austrians and Piedmontese loyal to the King. They were 

easily routed and the revolution was over. Charles Felix, 

an absolutist king, was upon the throne, and Austria had 

again shown her resolution and her power. Once more the 

demand for constitutional freedom had been suppressed, once 

more Metternich had triumphed. 

Reasons for Thus both the Italian movements for a freer political 

„ ,, life had ended in disaster. The reasons for their failure 

01 tne 

movements are instructive and are important for an understanding of the 

of 1820. Italian problem. The Neapolitan revolution failed because 
of the European coaHtion forbidding its success, because 
of the treachery of the King, because of the illiberal treat- 
ment of Sicily by the revolutionists. That of Piedmont 
failed because it was the work of a small clique, had no 
broad basis of appeal to the people, lacked leadership and 
definite aims, neglected details, and also because of the 
opposition of the powers. 

Thus two revolutions had been overcome and the system 
of the Congress of Vienna preserved in Italy. There re- 
mained the more remote problem of Spain. The principle 
there, however, was the same and the Allies felt obliged to 

The Con- assert it. This was the work of the Congress of Verona. 

gress of The revolution in Spain was still triumphant. The King 
and the reactionary parties could not by their own strength 
regain their old position. They appealed to the allied mon- 
archs and by 1822 they, thoroughly committed to the policy 
involved, decided at the Congress of Verona, that Russia, 
Austria, Prussia, and France, should send to their ministers 
in Madrid identical notes demanding the immediate restora- 



INTERVENTION IN SPAIN 63 

tion of Ferdinand VII to the fulness of his powers. In the 
event of the expected refusal the ministers should quit Madrid 
and war should be declared. England opposed this policy 
with high indignation, but in vain. France, now a thor- 
oughly reactionary country, was commissioned to carry out 
the work of restoring Ferdinand. The Spaniards refused 
to accede to the demand of the powers, and in April 1823 
a French army of a hundred thousand under the Duke of 
Angouleme, heir presumptive to the French throne, crossed 
the Pyrenees. The Spanish Government had no army and 
no money and could not oppose the advance of the invaders 
with any vigor. The French spent six months in traversing 
the peninsula from north to south, meeting no serious resist- 
ance. The Cortes retired from Madrid to Cadiz before the 
invaders, taking the King with them. The siege of Cadiz 
was now begun. The war was soon over with the seizure 
of the fort of the Trocadero and Ferdinand was back upon 
his absolute throne, by act of France, supported by the 
Holy Alliance. 

There now began a period of odious reaction. All the Reaction in 
acts passed by the Cortes since 1820 were annulled. An ®P^^^- 
organization called the " Society of the Exterminating 
Angel " began a mad hunt for Liberals, throwing them into 
prison, shooting them down. The war of revenge knew no 
bounds. " Juntas of purification " helped it on. Thou- 
sands were driven from the country, hundreds were executed. 
The French Government, ashamed of its protege, endeavored 
to stop the savagery, but with slight success. It is an odious 
chapter in the history of Spain. 

The Holy Alliance by these triumphs in Naples, Piedmont, The 
and Spain, showed itself the dominant force in European t"^"^P^ 
politics. The system, named after Metternich, because his ^^niance. 
diplomacy had built it up and because he stood in the very 
center of it, seemed firmly established as the European system. 
But it had achieved its last notable triumph. It was now 
to receive a series of checks that were to limit it forever. 



64 REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY 

Against the decisions of the congresses we have passed in 
review, one power, England, had protested, though to no 
effect. England's prestige had steadily dechned since the 
Congress of Vienna. The three eastern powers simply filed 
her protests against their intentions in their archives, paying 
no further heed. England, which had driven the French 
out of Spain ten years before, now saw them coming in again, 
this time with ease and success. As England's influence 
abroad decreased the wrath of Englishmen grew, and with 
the advent of Canning to the cabinet England delivered some 
swift blows in retaliation, showing that she was still a power 
to be reckoned with. It was, of course, useless for her to 
think of opposing the three great military monarchies by 
arms. But the contest between her and them was now 
removed to a field where her authority would unquestionably 
prove decisive. 

Having restored the King of Spain to absolute power, 
the next wish of the Holy Alliance was to restore to Spain, 
and thus to monarchy, the revolted Spanish- American colonies. 
England let it be known that she would oppose any steps 
having this end in view, save those of the Spaniards them- 
selves, and, as she controlled the sea, her declaration virtually 
was that she would keep the Holy Alliance restricted to 
the continent of Europe and would prevent it from sending 
ships and troops to the scene of the revolt. She sought 
and received the co-operation of the United States in this 
purpose, though no alliance was formed and each power 
acted independently. The United States had approved the 
secession of the countries to the south of her, so plainly to 
her advantage and so evidently in imitation of her example. 
This Government had also in 1819 virtually forced Spain 
to cede Florida, hitherto a Spanish possession. And now, 
just after the close of the successful French invasion and 
the restoration of Ferdinand, the President of the United 
The Monroe States, James Monroe, in a message to Congress destined 
Doctrine. ^^ become one of the most famous documents ever written 



^ THE MONROE DOCTRINE 65 

'In the White House, gave emphatic notice to the Holy 
Alliance of the attitude this country would assume in case 
it should endeavor to win back her colonies for Spain, should 
Spain herself be unable to do so. We should consider any 
attempt on the part of these absolute monarchies of Europe 
" to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere 
as dangerous to our peace and safety," and we could not 
view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing the 
South American states " or controlling in any other manner, 
their destiny, by any European power, In any other light 
than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition to- 
wards the United States." These suggestions from England 
and the United States were sufficient to prevent the sum- 
moning of any new congress to consider the reconquest of 
America and thus to add new laurels to the Holy Alliance. 
The doctrine of intervention had reached its high water 
mark as applied to the interests of reaction, had received 
an emphatic defiance — a defiance made the more resounding 
by the recognition shortly by England and the United States 
of the independence of the South American republics. Aus- 
tria, Russia, and Prussia protested against a course which 
" tended to encourage that revolutionary spirit it had been 
found so difficult to control in Europe." Canning proudly 
said, " We have called In the New World to redress the 
balance of the Old." On the other hand, Metternich's 
opinion of Canning was that he was a " malevolent meteor 
hurled by an angry Providence upon Europe." 

The Metternich system, thus checked, was to receive before The 



' Metter- 



long a series of blows from which it never recovered, in the 

1 ,., --r^ 'i-r^i- ^ich sys- 

overthrow of the restored Bourbons in France, in the Belgian ^^^ „ 

revolution of 1830, and, In a certain way, In the Greek war checked. 

of Independence. 



CHAPTER IV 
FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

THE REIGN OF LOUIS XVIII 

The pro- No country in Europe had undergone between 1789 and 

fects of th ^^^^ ^^ sweeping and so vital a transformation as had 
French France, the birthplace of the Revolution and still the home 

Revolution, of its unrealized ideals. Institutions, feehngs, aspirations, 
mental outlook of a kind quite new in Europe, had been 
adopted by millions of Frenchmen as a new evangel. Much 
had been irrevocably destroyed by the Revolution, much had 
been created, much had been merely sketched. It remained 
for the nineteenth century to fill in this outline. The old 
form of society to which France had been accustomed for 
centuries was gone and a type new to Europe, of immense 
proselytizing power, had been unfolded. The old had been 
one of privileged classes. The new was democratic. The 
three great institutions, agencies of the privileged few, which 
had long weighed down with paralyzing effect upon the mass 
of Frenchmen, the monarchy, the nobility, and the church, had 
been brought into subjection to the people, had been weak- 
ened immeasurably as controlling forces in the life of modern 
France. France had made a passionate effort to free her- 
self from all forms of aristocracy, temporal and ecclesiast- 
ical. France in 1815 was by far the most democratic coun- 
try in Europe, in her feelings, her thoughts, her customs, 
and her institutions. 

These changes had, however, not been brought about bj'' 
the unanimous consent of the French people. The old privi- 
leged classes were, from the very nature of the case, sworn 
enemies of the new order which had been erected at their 

66 



THE RESTORATION OF THE BOURBONS 67 

expense, and it was precisely because men were not agreed 
as to the permanence of the principles and decisions of the 
Revolution that the contest between the adherents of the old 
and the supporters of the new was to be carried over into 
the new era, and indeed still continues. The war of opinions 
which began with the Revolution was not ended in 1795 or 
in 1815, nor has it entirely ended yet, for the reason that 
not all Frenchmen have at any time been ready to accept 
the present fact, the status quo, but have tried repeatedly to 
re-open the discussion, and to modify, if not to reverse, the 
decision. This wai'fare is the warp and woof of French 
history in the nineteenth century. 

One thing, however, was settled at the outset. The old The 
regime was not to be restored. The Bourbons recovered the restoration 
right to rule only on condition that their monarchy should be Bourbons 
a constitutional one. The Allies who, as the phrase ran, not a 
had " brought back the Bourbons in their baggage," in- restoration 
sisted on this, believing it the only means of assuring the jx^^j^g 
continuance of their rule, and Louis XVIII, rather than 
have a constitution forced upon him by the representatives 
of the French people, granted one himself. This procedure 
had the manifest advantage for him that he did not appear 
to receive his throne from the people on conditions imposed 
by them, that he did not at all recognize the revolutionary 
principle of popular sovereignty, that he appeared to rule 
solely by right of birth, by divine right, as had his ancestors. 
In the plenitude of his powers he would graciously grant 
certain privileges to his people. The monarchical principle 
would remain unblemished. Consequently, on his first return 
to France in 1814, he issued the most famous document con- The Con- 
nected with his name, the Constitutional Charter, which, ^ ^tutional 

Charter, 
suspended later during the Hundred Days, was revived in 

1815 and remained in force until 1848, under three kings, 
Louis XVIII (1815-1824), Charles X (1824-1830), and 
Louis Philippe (1830-1848), only altered in some details 
in 1830 as a result of the revolution of that year. 



68 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

The form of By this act the King decreed that his own person should 
government, j^g inviolable, that his ministers might be impeached by the 
chambers, that he alone should possess all executive power, 
that he should command the army and navy, declare war, 
make treaties, and appoint to all positions in the public 
services ; that the legislative power should be exercised by 
himself and a legislature consisting of two houses, a Cham- 
ber of Peers and a Chamber of Deputies ; that the king alone 
should propose all laws ; that they then should be discussed 
by the chambers and accepted or rejected according to their 
desire, but not amended save with his consent. If he should 
not propose a law desired by the chambers they might peti- 
tion him to do so and might suggest the provisions they 
would like to see it contain, but if the king should reject 
this petition it should not be again presented during the same 
session. No tax could be levied without the consent of the 
chambers. 
A restricted The Chamber of Peers was to be appointed by the king 
su rage. £qj. i[{q^ qj. foj. hereditary transmission, as he might see fit. 
Its sessions were to be secret. The Chamber of Deputies was 
to consist of representatives chosen for a period of five years. 
The suffrage was carefully restricted by an age and prop- 
erty qualification. Only those who were at least thirty years 
of age and paid at least three hundred francs in direct 
taxes should have the right to vote for deputies, and only 
those were eligible to become deputies who were forty years 
of age or over and paid a direct tax of at least one thousand 
francs. These provisions were very favorable to the wealthy. 
Indeed, they made the chamber a plutocratic body. There 
were less than 100,000 voters in France out of a population 
of 29,000,000, and not more than 12,000 were eligible to 
become deputies. 

The Charter proclaimed the equality of all Frenchmen, 
yet only a petty minority were given the right to participate 
in the government of the country. France was still in a 
political sense a land of privilege, only privilege was no 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER 69 

longer based on birth but on fortune. Nevertheless, this 
was a more liberal form of government than she had 
ever had under Napoleon, and was the most liberal to be 
seen in Europe, outside of England. The number of voters 
and of those eligible as deputies increased with the increase 
of wealth. The influence of English example is apparent 
in many of the provisions of the Charter. 

There was another set of provisions in this document of Provisions 
even greater importance than those determining the future <^°^<^^r^i^& 
form of government, namely, that in which the civil rights rights, 
of Frenchmen were narrated. These provisions show how 
much of the work of the Revolution and of Napoleon the 
Bourbons were prepared to accept. They were intended to 
reassure the people of France, who feared to see in the 
Restoration a loss of liberties or rights which had become 
most precious to them. They were thus intended to win for 
the restored monarchy a popular support and a guarantee 
of permanence it thus far lacked. It was declared that all 
Frenchmen were equal before the law, whatever their titles 
or rank, and thus the cardinal principle of the Revolution 
was preserved; that all were equally eligible to civil and 
military positions, that thus no class should monopolize 
public service, as had largely been the case before the Revolu- Kecognition 
tion ; that no one should be arrested or prosecuted save °^ *^® 
by due process of law, that thus the day of arbitrary Revolution 
imprisonment was not to return; that there should be com- 
plete rehgious freedom for all sects, though Roman Cathol- 
icism was declared to be the religion of the state; that the 
press should be free " while conforming to the laws which 
are necessary to restrain abuses of that liberty " — a phrase 
suspiciously elastic. Those who had purchased the con- 
fiscated property of the crown, the church, and the nobles, 
during the Revolution were assured that their titles were 
inviolable. The Napoleonic nobility was placed on an equal- 
ity with the old nobility of France, and the king might 
create new peers at will, but nobility was henceforth simply 



70 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

a social title carrying with it no privileges and no exemp- 
tions from taxation or the other burdens of the state.^ 

Such were the concessions that Louis XVIII was willing 
to make to the spirit of the times and the demands of the 
people. They constituted an open recognition of the fact 
that the France of 1815 was not to be a restoration of the 
France of 1789. Certain phrases of the Charter gave offense, 
but they were mainly those of the preamble in which the King 
labored to maintain the claim of the divine right of monarchy 
and to connect his act with medieval precedents. These 
phrases were far-fetched and curiously archaic, but the fact 
remained that with all its limitations the Charter granted 
France a larger portion of self-government than it had 
enjoyed before, except during a brief period in the Revolu- 
tion. And it put the Bourbon monarchy on record as 
recognizing the principal results of the democratic evolution 
of society. The Restoration started out by accepting the 
centralized administrative system, the great law codes, the 
concordat, and the nobility of Napoleon, and the social or- 
ganization created by the Revolution. 

The political condition of France after 1815 was exceed- 
ingly troubled. The nation was divided into several parties 
whose animosity toward each other had only been embittered 
louis by the Hundred Days. Louis XVIII, restored for a second 

' time by the victorious enemies of France, was eminently quali- 

1755-1824. ^,'^,, , . . „,. 111 

ned to calm the seethmg passions of his countrymen and lead 

them in the necessary work of recuperation. He was natu- 
rally a man of moderate opinions. A thorough believer in 
the divine right of monarchs and asserting the belief with 
fervor, he was, however, too clear-sighted to think that mon- 
archy of the type historic in France could be restored. He 
saw as clearly as any one in the realm the greatness of the 
changes that had latterly been effected in France, and that 

*The Charter may be found in full in Anderson, Constitutions and 
Documents, No. 93, or in Univ. of Penn. Translations and Reprints, 
Vol. 1, No. 3. 



LOUIS XVIII 71 

his very throne would be imperiled if he attempted to undo 
any of the important work of the Revolution. He willingly 
granted a constitution to his people, sharing with them the 
power which his ancestors had wielded alone. He preferred 
to rule as a constitutional king than not to rule at all. 
He had known the bitterness of the exile's life too well to 
desire to be compelled to " resume his travels " owing to 
any illiberal conduct on his part. The throne was for him. 
only the " softest of chairs." Cold-blooded, skeptical, free 
from illusions, free from the passion of revenge, indolent by 
nature, he desired to avoid conflicts and to enjoy his power 
in peace. His policy, which from the beginning he at- 
tempted to carry out, was expressed by himself a few years 
later in these words : " The system which I have adopted 
. . is based on the maxim that it will never do to be 
the king of two peoples, and to the ultimate fusion of these — ■ 
for their distinction is only too real — all the efforts of my 
government are directed." 

The personality of the King seemed, therefore, admirably The 

adapted for the problem that confronted France in 1815. difficulties 

..... of his 

But there were difficulties in the situation that foreboded situation. 

trouble. Louis XVIII had been restored by foreign armies. 
His presence on the throne was a constant reminder of the 
humiliation of France. Moreover, his strength lay not in 
himself but in the historic role of his house, in immemorial 
prescription, and the power of mere custom over the French 
mind had been greatly lessened during the past twenty- 
five years. But a more serious feature was his environ- 
ment. The court was now composed of the nobles who had 
suffered greatly from the Revolution, who had been robbed 
of their property, driven from the country, who had seen 
many of their relatives executed by the guillotine. It was but 
natural that these men should have come back full of hatred 
for the authors c . their woes, that they should detest the ideas 
of the Revolution and the persons who had been identified 
with it. These men were not free from passion, as was 



72 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

Louis XVIII. More eager to restore the former glory of 
the crown, the former rank of the nobiHty and the clergy, 
more bitter toward the new ideas than the King himself, 
The TTltras. they were the Ultra-royalists, or Ultras — men more royalist 
than the King, as they claimed. They saw in the Revolution 
only robbery and sacrilege and gross injustice to them- 
selves. They bitterly assailed Louis XVIII for granting the 
Charter, a dangerous concession to the Revolution, and they 
secretly wished to abolish it, meanwhile desiring to nullify 
its liberal provisions as far as possible. They constituted the 
party of the Right. Their leader was the Count of Artois, 
brother of Louis XVIII, who, the King being childless, stood 
next in line of succession. These men, not very numerous, 
but very clamorous, formed the natural entourage of the 
monarch. The matter of most pressing importance to 
France was what power of resistance the King would show 
to this resolute and revengeful band. Would he in the end 
give way to them or would he be able to control them? 

The other parties in France in 1815 were shortly differen- 
tiated. There was the party of the Left. This was not so 
much a coherent group as a conglomeration of the disaffected. 
It included those who believed in a republic, who, however, 
were for some time so few as to be a negligible quantity. It 
also included the adherents of Napoleon. This class was 
numerous and composed chiefly of old soldiers who saw them- 
selves, the glory of the Napoleonic state, now degraded, put 
on half-pay, thrown into the background. These radical 
and discontented elements were opposed to the very existence 
of the Bourbon monarchy. But they were hopelessly dis- 
credited by the abuses and the failures of both the Republic 
and the Empire. 
The Center There were two other parties, called the Right Center 
parties, and the Left Center. They comprised the body of moderate 

men who stood between the two extremes and were opposed 
to both. They were united by one bond — common loyalty 
to the Charter which the King had granted. They were the 



PARTIES IN FRANCE 73 

convinced supporters of the constitutional regime, but they 
differed from each other in their interpretation of what the 
Charter should mean. The Right Center accepted it as 
a finality, to be carried out honestly and to the letter. The 
Left Center believed in its honest execution, but also be- 
Heved that, while the Charter should be thus observed, men 
should work for its further expansion, that as the years 
went by larger constitutional liberty should be accorded 
to the people. The Charter was for them not a finality 
but a stepping-stone. But further progress should be at- 
tempted only slowly and after full reflection. Of these four 
parties, two were distinctly unconstitutional — the Ultras and 
the Radicals or Left. The former, professing a momentary 
lip service to the Charter, were resolved to alter it as soon as 
possible in fundamental and comprehensive ways. They were 
in principle opposed to a written constitution. They wished 
to restore the absolute authority of the king and the former 
privileged positions of clergy and nobility. The Charter 
stood bluntly in the way. Consequently, however much they 
might dissemble, they favored its ultimate abrogation. The 
Radicals favored its destruction for the opposite reason — 
that the Republic or the Empire might be restored, the 
Revolution made triumphant once more. The two middle 
parties were the friends of the new regime. 

The events of the first year seemed to show the great The White 
power of the Ultras. Reaction set in fast and furiously in ®^^°^* 
1815. There occurred a series of outrages that have come 
down in history as the White Terror, in contradistinction 
to the Red Terror of the Revolution. Immediately after 
the battle of Waterloo rioting broke out in Marseilles, led 
by Royalists, and resulting in much plundering and many 
murders. The movement spread to other departments in the 
south. Religious motives were added to the political, as the 
Protestants, particularly numerous in the south, had been 
strongly attached to the Revolution and to Napoleon and 
had welcomed the return of the latter from Elba. The white 



74 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

flag of the Bourbons was disgraced by these atrocities com- 
mitted by Royalists. The Government was in no sense the 
cause of them, but it was criminally negligent in not trying 
to repress them. 

With the meeting of the first legislative chambers this 
campaign of revenge and reaction became systematic and 
frenzied. The Chamber of Deputies was overwhelmingly 
Ultra-royalist, elected, as it had been, amid the terror 
and demoralization of the crashing Empire. It demanded 
satisfaction for the treachery of the Hundred Days. As 
a result Marshal Ney, " the bravest of the brave," and other 
distinguished French soldiers, were condemned to death and 
shot — an everlasting disgrace to the Bourbon monarchy. 
The Chamber demanded repressive measures of various kinds 
from the King and got them. It demanded still more violent 
ones which the King would not concede. The dissension 
between the Moderate Royalists, represented by the King, 
the ministry, and the Chamber of Peers, on the one hand, and 
the Ultras, represented by the Count of Artois and the 
Chamber of Deputies on the other, soon reached a climax. 
The King himself said bitterly, " If these gentlemen had 
full liberty, they would end by purging even me." The 
representatives of the foreign governments intervened to 
say that so unreasonable a reaction must cease, in the in- 
terest of the stability of the Bourbon monarchy and of the 
peace of Europe. They feared that the revolutionary ele- 
ments of France would break out again, stung by such in- 
sane legislation. The Ultras even went so far as to reject 
the budget, a blazing indiscretion, as it offended all who 
were financially interested in France, foreigners and French- 
Louis men. The King now took a decisive step, prorogued the 
XVIII Chamber, and then dissolved it. He then appealed to the 

cliccks t)ll6 

people to return a moderate Chamber. The appeal was 
wholly successful and this mad reaction was speedily brought 
to a close. The Ultra majority was swept away and a 
large majority of Moderate Royalists was returned. France 



Ultras. 



THE WORK OF RECONSTRUCTION 75 

had weathered her first crisis in parliamentary government, 
but the temper of the Ultras had been shown with the 
vividness of lightning. France had had emphatic warn- 
ing of the danger that would lie in the triumph of that 
party. 

From 1816 to 1820 the Government of France was able A period of 

to advance along more liberal lines. The two chief ministers, moderate 

. . . liberalism. 

Richelieu and Decazes, both convinced adherents of the Bour- 
bon monarchy, were men who saw the utter folly of attempts 
at reaction such as those just witnessed and who believed 
that the pressing needs of France were very different from 
those of a faction bent on revenge. The two Centers now 
controlled Parliament, and for several years worked in har- 
mony with the King. 

They accomplished much for the rehabilitation of France. 
In 1815, it will be recalled, the Allies had imposed a large war 
indemnity on France, and had insisted that she support an 
army of occupation of 150,000 in eighteen fortresses of the 
northern and eastern departments for a minimum of three, 
a maximum of five, years. This was a great financial burden 
and a greater humiliation. The liberation of the soil of the The libera- 

foreien armies was a task which the Kino; and the ministry ^°^. ^ ^ 

*= . ^ -^ territory, 

had very much at heart. To effect this the people had to 

make great sacrifices, for before it could be accomplished 
the national credit must be re-established and to effect this 
Frenchmen must pay higher taxes. This they did, and 
France proceeded to pay off the immense war indemnity 
more rapidly that the powers that had imposed it had ex- 
pected would be possible. By 1817 the Allies agreed to 
withdraw thirty thousand of their troops, and at the Con- 
gress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 they agreed to withdraw 
the remainder before the close of that year. Thus the out- 
ward evidence of the appalling national humiliation was re- 
moved. " I can die at peace," said Louis XVIII, " since I 
shall see France free and the French flag floating over every 
city of France." France was, for the first time since 1815, 



76 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

mistress in her own house. The foreign ambassadors ceased 
their weekly meetings in Paris, designed for the drafting of 
advice to be given to the French Government. The foreign 
tutelage was over. 
Keorgani- The reorganization of the army was undertaken at this 

time. The mihtary power of France had been sadly shattered 
in the general downfall of the Napoleonic system. The army 
was reduced to a few corps kept up by voluntary enlistment. 
Now that the foreign troops were to be withdrawn and France 
was to resume her full place in international affairs it was 
necessary to create an army that should command respect. 
There were, however, difficulties in the way. A large army 
could not be raised by volunteering. And yet forced military 
service had become, under Napoleon, so hateful a burden that 
it had been expressly forbidden in the Charter. A com- 
bination of the two methods lay at the basis of the new law. 
Voluntary enlistments were still to furnish the bulk of the 
army. If these should not be sufficient recourse should be had 
to compulsion to complete the corps. All young men of 
twenty years of age should draw lots. The " bad numbers " 
alone would be forced to serve for six years. Forty thousand 
might thus by these two processes be enrolled every year. 
Having served in the active army six years, they should pass 
into the reserve army for six years more. This reserve 
should be used only in defense of the soil of France, should 
not be ordered out of the country. It was estimated that 
thus there would be an army of 240,000 men on a peace 
footing. Promotion was to be for service and merit and 
was to be equally open to all. The bill was violently opposed 
by the Ultras for the reason that it destroyed all hope of 
the nobility monopolizing the positions in the army. Their 
chances were simply the same as those of other men. The 
bill became law in 1818. Thus the basis of the military in- 
stitutions was firmly laid. The army as thus constituted 
lasted with some alterations of detail down to 1868, surviving 
many violent changes in French history. 



THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM 77 

On two other subjects this moderate ministry of Riche- The 
lieu carried important legislation, the electoral system and the 
liberty of the press. Concerning both matters the Charter 
had merely laid down general principles, leaving the manner 
in which they should be applied to be determined by the 
legislature in special laws. A liberty so large enabled the 
legislature to determine the real character, the range, and 
effect of two fundamental privileges, and as the different 
parties soon saw that by framing the laws in this way, or 
in that, they could further their own interests, both matters 
became the subject of passionate contention in parliament 
all through the period of the Restoration, and laws very 
dissimilar in character and in effect were passed as first 
one party, then another, gained ascendency in the state. 
Moderates and Ultras differed on these questions as on 
others. 

Concerning the electoral system, the ideas of the Mod- 
erates were shown in the law of 1817, passed by the Richeheu- 
Decazes ministry. The Charter merely stated the qualifica- 
tions required of voters and of deputies. The manner in 
which the voters should elect the deputies was not defined. 
The law of 1817 established the system of the so-called gen- 
eral ticket {scrutin de liste) ; that is, the voters of each de- 
partment should meet in the chief town of the department, 
and there elect all the deputies to which the department was 
entitled. This system favored the Moderates and Liberals, 
who belonged generally to the bourgeoisie, to the industrial 
and trading classes, largely an urban population, whereas 
the country gentlemen, the landed proprietors and their 
tenants, living in the country, were chiefly Ultras, members 
or adherents of the aristocracy of the old regime. Many 
of these found it difficult or expensive or annoying to make 
the trip to the chief town of the department, where alone 
they could cast their votes. Thus the law, which remained 
in force from 1817 to 1820, favored the Moderates as each 
succeeding election showed. 



78 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

The press There was passed in 1819 a press law, much more liberal 

^^ ° ' than that of the Napoleonic period, which had, in the main, 

been carried over into the first years of the Restoration. 
The censorship was abolished, and press cases were hence- 
forth to be tried before juries. But even under this system 
newspapers were a luxury, enjoyed only by the rich and well- 
to-do, as they were not sold by the single copy but only to 
subscribers at a high price, and in addition there was a stamp 
tax on each copy of two cents, and a postage duty of one 
cent. Moreover, while freedom in establishing newspapers 
was guaranteed, as a matter of fact only the well-to-do could 
establish them, owing to the large preliminary deposit re- 
quired of their proprietors, which was to serve as a guaranty 
fund for the payment of fines that might be inflicted as a 
result of damage suits. 
Activity of But this body of liberal legislation rested upon an insecure 
® ^^^' basis, the favor of the King, and the coherence of the great 
mass of moderate men, the Centers. The Ultras did not re- 
linquish their activity and were alert to seize upon every 
incident that might discredit the party in power. Nor had 
they long to wait. Events shortly occurred that aroused 
misgivings among the most timid of the Moderates, tending 
to drive them over to the Ultras, events, too, that shook the 
firmness of the King. According to the Charter there was 
to be a partial renewal of the Chamber of Deputies each year, 
one-fifth of that body passing out, and their places being 
filled by new elections. These elections showed a distinct 
trend in favor of the Radical party, or party of the Left. 
At the first renewal in 1817, twenty-five " independents " of 
the Left were returned; in 1818 the result was similar, the 
Left increasing to forty-five. Among them were Lafayette 
and Manuel, both prominent figures in the Revolution. 
Now the principles of the Left were not only liberal, but were 
largely anti-dynastic. While that wing acquiesced in the 
existence of the Bourbon monarchy, it might at any time 
become actively opposed to it. 



THE ELECTION OF ABBE GREGOIRE 79 

The elections in 1819 added greatly to the growing Left — Election of 
it numbering now ninety out of a total of 258. But more 
damaging than the number was the character of some of 
the members chosen, particularly of Gregoire. Gregoire 
had played a prominent role in the Revolution, having been 
a member of the Constituent Assembly and of the Conven- 
tion. He had aided in the overthrow of the Roman Catholic 
Church. He had shown himself a fervid republican. A 
remark of his that kings are in the moral world what 
monsters are in the physical had had an immense notoriety, 
and was not yet forgotten. He was not a regicide, as he was 
absent from Paris at the time of the trial of Louis XVI, 
but he was, owing to his utterances, commonly considered 
one. No man was more odious to the Ultras and his election 
to the Chamber outraged their deepest feelings. Some of 
them had themselves helped bring about his election, believ- 
ing that the triumph of so notable a revolutionary would 
help them in upsetting the mild policy of the ministry 
and bring about the longed-for reaction. In this they were 
largely right, as this election aroused consternation in the 
ranks of those who had hitherto been moderate, and drove 
many into the camp of the Ultras. The chief minister, 
Decazes, (Richelieu having previously resigned), was con- 
vinced that some change must be made in the policy of the 
Government. The Ultras raged against this " regicidal 
priest," declared that either he must yield to the dynasty 
or the dynasty to him, and in a stormy session and amid 
shouts of " Long live the King," voted his exclusion from 
the Chamber, to which he had been chosen. The freedom 
of elections was thus grossly violated, as well as the promise 
of the Charter that the past should be forgotten. 

But an event far more damaging to the Moderates now Murder of 

occurred — the murder of the Duke of Berry. The Duke *^^ Duke of 

Berrv. 
was the younger son of the Count of Artois, and as his 

elder brother, the Duke of Angouleme, had no heir, he was the 

hope of the dynasty. At about eleven o'clock on the even- 



80 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

ing of February 13, 1820, as he was helping his wife into 
a carriage at the door of the Opera, he was violently 
attacked by a man, named Louvel, who plunged a dagger 
into his breast. The Duke died in the opera house at five 
o'clock, surrounded by the royal family, and demanding 
pardon for the murderer. The murderer desired to cut off 
the Bourbon line, which he thought he could do as the Duke 
had no children. His act was his own ; he had no accomplices. 
But the Royalists at once asserted that the Liberal party was 
responsible and that anarchy was the natural result of the 
policy of liberalism. Their opposition was directed against 
the ministry under Decazes, whom they succeeded in forcing 
to resign. At his resignation Louis XVIII is said to have 
remarked, " It is over with me," meaning that from that 
time on his policy of reconciliation was over, that the party 
headed by the Count of Artois would control. This was 
virtually to be the case. In 1820 began the great royalist 
reaction, started in 1815, suspended from 1816 to 1820, 
when the more moderate policies prevailed, and destined now 
to last with but a single shght interruption until 1830, when 
it culminated in a new revolution. 
Electoral ^he Right, now in control, proceeded to undo much of the 

1820 work of the preceding ministries. By the electoral law of 

1820 that of 1817 was rescinded, and a new system brought 
into existence. The Chamber of Deputies was enlarged 
from 258 members to 430, an increase of 172. The electors 
of deputies were no longer to meet together in the chief 
town of the department and vote for all the deputies from 
that department, but were to be divided into as many groups 
or colleges as there were arrondissements or districts in the 
department. Each voter was therefore to vote for one deputy 
only, the one from his district. Thus the principle of single- 
member constituencies was adopted. This arrangement 
would be advantageous to the Ultras, as the country gentle- 
men and their tenants, supporters of that party, 
no longer having to make the journey to the chief 



THE LAW OF THE DOUBLE VOTE 81 

town, but enabled to vote at places nearer home, would come 
to the polls in larger numbers. In this way 258 members 
were to be chosen. The other 172 were to be elected in a 
special manner. At the chief town of each department were 
to meet one-fourth of the voters, those who paid the heaviest 
taxes, and they were to choose the additional 172. This 
method, of course, greatly augmented the power of the rich. 
It thus happened that about twelve thousand voters had the 
right to vote twice, once in the district and once in the de- 
partment college, and similarly were twice represented — by 
the deputies chosen in both ways, in both of which elections 
they participated. Hence this electoral law of 1820 was called 
the law of the double vote. Moreover, the president of each The double 
electoral college was to be chosen by the central government ^° ^' 
and the voters must write out their ballots in his presence 
and hand them to him unfolded — an excellent device for 
enabling the Government to bring pressure upon them in 
favor of its candidates. This bill was hotly contested in 
the Chamber and outside. The debate was long and im- 
passioned, participated in by over a hundred and twenty 
members. The principle of the law, the double vote, was 
adopted only by a majority of five. Hailed with enthusiasm 
by the Ultras it assured their ascendency. By 1824 the 
independents, or Radicals, numbered only seven. 

The hberal press law of 1819 went the same way after a The censor- 
brief existence of ten months. It was rescinded. The cen- \ ^^ f ^' 

stored, 
sorship was restored. No journal could be founded without 

the Government's consent, no single issue could appear with- 
out the censor's permission, the Government might suspend 
its publication for six months, and even under certain con- 
ditions suppress it (1820). This control, which would ap- 
pear sufficient, was strengthened two years later by an 
additional law which enabled the Government to suppress 
publications even for " tendencies " when no definite infrac- 
tion of the law could be proved. 

Armed with these powerful instruments for the control 



82 



FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 



French 

invasion 

Spain. 



of 



Triumph of 
the Ultras. 



Death of 

Louis 

XVIII. 



of elections and of the organs of opinion and agitation, the 
Ultras pushed confidently forward, and their future appeared 
assured by the birth of a posthumous son of the Duke of 
Berry. They forced the King to send an army into Spain 
to restore Ferdinand VII to an absolute throne in the interests 
of the Holy Alhance (1823). They thus hoped to throw 
military glamor over the restored House of Bourbon, to 
efface by dazzling exploits the uncomfortable memory of 
those performed by Napoleon. Flushed with an easy victory 
in Spain, the Ultras resumed the policy of political and re- 
ligious reaction at home with great enthusiasm. 

Thinking that a new election of the Chamber of Deputies 
held during the war fever would result overwhemingly in its 
favor, the Villele ministry (1822-1828) caused the existing 
Chamber to be dissolved and new elections to be ordered. 
They were held in February 1824, and resulted as desired 
in a sweeping triumph of the Ultras. Of the 430 deputies 
elected only fifteen were Liberals. This triumph had been 
achieved only by the grossest abuse of power on the part of 
the Government, which stopped at nothing to gain its ends. 
It even went so far as to relieve many prominent Liberals of 
taxes, so that they could not meet the tax qualification for 
voters or for membership in the Chamber. 

A law was now passed decreeing that the new Chamber 
should last seven years, to be entirely reconstructed at the 
end of that time. This was an arbitrary change in the 
Charter. 

The reactionary party, now overwhelmingly in the major- 
ity in the Chamber, and declaring that that Chamber should 
not be altered for seven years, thus lengthening the term 
and suppressing the annual partial renewal, considered that 
it could safely advance to the realization of its most cherished 
plans, too long held in abeyance. Their project was helped 
by the death in 1824 of Louis XVIII, and the accession to 
power of his brother, the Count of Artois, who assumed the 
title of Charles X. Charles had virtually directed the policy 



CHARACTER OF CHARLES X 83 

of his brother for several years. His accession, however, 
would necessarily give it additional impetus. He needed 
only six years thoroughly to uproot the elder branch of the 
House of Bourbon. 

THE REIGN OF CHARLES X 

The characteristics of the new King were well known. He Charles X, 
was the convmced leader of the reactionaries in France from *^*'^°'^^' 
1814 to 1830. He had been the constant and bitter oppo- 
nent of his brother's liberalism, and had finally seen that 
liberalism forced to yield to the growing strength of the 
party which he led. He was not likely to abandon lifelong 
principles at the age of sixty-seven, and at the moment 
when he seemicd about to be able to put them into force. 
Louis XVIII had made an honest effort to reconcile the two 
social regimes and systems into which Frenchmen were di- 
vided — the old pre-revolutionary regime and the new regime, 
the product of the Revolution, the old nobility and the 
modern middle class with its principle of equality before 
the law. The nobility had returned from abroad unchanged, 
with ideas of feudal privileges, with the determination to 
restore as much as possible of the old power of the landed 
aristocracy and of the church, faithful support of the 
monarchy by divine right. The policy of reconciliation had 
been badly shattered during the closing years of Louis 
XVIII's reign. With the accession of Charles X it was Policy of 
entirely abandoned, and that of restoration vigorously at- *^^ "^^ 
tempted. Not that this was proclaimed from the housetops. 
Charles rather at first attempted to reassure the somewhat 
perturbed mind of the nation. He announced his firm in- 
tention to support the Charter, and declared that all 
Frenchmen were, in his eyes, equal. He liberated political 
prisoners and won great applause by abolishing the censor- 
ship of the press. But these halcyon days Avere limited to 
the inauguration of the new Government. At the corona- 
tion of the King, France was treated to a spectacle of 



84 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

medieval mummery that impressed most unpleasantly a 
people that had for a generation been living in the posi- 
tive realities of the modern spirit. It seemed the most 
incredible height of absurdity to see the King anointed on 
seven parts of his person with sacred oil, miraculously pre- 
served, it was asserted, and dating from the time of Clovis. 
Nor could France, in the modern scientific atmosphere, 
gravely believe, as it was asked to, in the power of the king's 
touch. Beranger's witty poem on Charles the Simple was 
on everybody's lips. 
The nobles But the legislation now brought forward by the King, and 

^ largely enacted, showed the belated political and social ideas 
for property o j y x- 

confiscated ^^ this Government. It was first proposed to grant nine 
during the hundred and eighty-eight million francs to the nobility whose 
Revolution, j^jjjg j^g^^j been confiscated during the Revolution and sold 
as " national property " to private individuals. The Charter 
explicitly assured the purchasers of this land that they 
should not be molested in their possession. But the courtiers, 
despite this assurance, were demanding the restoration of 
their estates to themselves. The King expressed the belief 
that by this act the last wounds of the Revolution would be 
closed. The emigres should not receive their lands, but they 
should receive a money indemnification. 

The debates on this proposal were heated. Many of the 
Ultra-royalists criticised it, saying that the sum proposed 
was entirely insufficient. Many rejected the very idea of 
indemnification, but demanded that the " stolen goods " 
themselves be given back. That there was an article in the 
Charter preventing this they did not consider a legitimate 
obstacle. 

The Opposition, however, did not lack arguments. Had the 
descendants of those whose property had been seized after the 
revocation of the Edict of Nantes ever been indemnified.'' 
Had the emigres suffered so much more than others from 
the Revolution that they alone should be compensated for 
their losses.'' It might be right to compensate those who had 



COMPENSATION OF THE EMIGRES 85 

had to flee from France to save their lives, but many of 
these emigres who were now to help themselves out of the 
public treasury had fled voluntarily in order to bring about 
an invasion of France by foreigners, and, when that invasion 
had occurred, had themselves joined it and borne arms against 
France. Confiscation of property was a very proper pun- 
ishment for such persons. Again, those who had remained 
at home and defended the fatherland had suff^ered as much 
as those who had emigrated and then invaded it. Further- 
more, this measure would aid only the landed proprietors, 
but many fortunes, based upon personal property, had like- 
wise been destroyed by the Revolution. 

The bill passed (1825) and became law, though the Op- 
position in the Chamber of Deputies was larger than had 
been expected. Charles called it " an act of justice." It 
was perhaps wise in the sense that all purchasers of national 
domains, who, despite the assurance of the Charter, were 
constantly threatened, were henceforth safe. The value of 
these properties immediately rose in the market. But while 
the act pleased the emigres and satisfied the purchasers of 
their domains, it off'ended the great mass of Frenchmen. 

The manner in which the transaction was to be carried into Method of 

eff^ect was as follows : the sum involved was estimated at about p^^^"^ ^ 
, .„. . 1 . . ,. 1 indemnity, 

a bilhon francs ; the financial condition of the state did not 

permit the outright payment of so immense a capital; it was 

decided, therefore, to pay not the capital but the interest 

each year. This, it was estimated, would increase the annual 

expenditures of the state by about thirty millions.^ This sum 

was procured by the conversion of the existing debt of France 

from a five per cent, to a three per cent, basis, thus saving 

about 28,000,000 francs in interest charges. In this way 

the indemnification of the emigres would be effected without 

an increase in taxes. But this new act offended the nation's 

bondholders, who saw their income arbitrarily reduced by 

^ As a matter of fact, interest was paid not on a billion but on about 
625,000,000 francs. 



86 



FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 



The law 

against 

sacrilege. 



Clerical 
reaction. 



two-fifths. Thus the monarchy made enemies of a powerful 
class of capitalists, particularly the bankers of Paris. 
Money was taken from Peter to pay Paul. The strength 
of this class, which felt itself outrageously defrauded, was 
to be shown in 1830 to the great discomfiture of the Bourbon 
monarchy. 

Another law that cast discredit upon this reign, and helped 
undermine it with the great mass of Frenchmen, was the 
law against sacrilege. By this act burglaries committed in 
ecclesiastical buildings and the profanation of holy vessels 
were, under certain conditions, made punishable with death. 
This barbaric law was, as a matter of fact, never enforced, 
but it bore st -iking witness to the temper of the party in 
power, and has ever since been a mark of shame upon the 
Bourbon monarchy. It helped to weaken the hold of the 
Bourbons upon France. It created a feeling of intense 
bitterness among the middle and lower classes of society, 
which were still largely dominated by the rationalism of the 
eighteenth century. They began to fear the clerical re- 
action more even than the political and social. The re- 
newed missionary zeal of the church, the denunciation by 
Catholic bishops of civil marriage as concubinage, the open 
and great activity of the Jesuits, a society that had been 
declared illegal in France, all indicated the growing influence 
of the clergy in the state, an impression not decreased when, 
in 1826, the Papal Jubilee was celebrated with great elab- 
orateness, and Frenchmen saw the King himself, clad in the 
violet robe of a prelate and accompanied by the court, 
walking in a religious procession through the streets 
of Paris. The university was under the control of the 
local bishop, who kept watch over professors whose opinions 
were denounced as dangerous, and who suspended many of 
their courses, as, for instance, those of Cousin and Guizot. 
Was it the purpose of the dominant party to restore both 
the nobility and the church to the proud position they had 
occupied before the Revolution.? 



PROPOSED LAW OF INHERITANCE 87 

Criticism of the evident policy of the Government was Attempt to 

I • 11- T«j.j.i*"j. jj re-establish 

becommg general and ommous. But the ministry proceeded 

with its plans with unusual fatuousness. It now attacked dpig of 
what was regarded as one of the most precious acquisitions primo- 
of the Revolution, the right to an equal division of an in- S^mture. 
heritance among all the heirs. The ministry brought for- 
ward a proposal, quite modest in its scope, to re-establish 
the principle of primogeniture. The Civil Code provided 
that in case the deceased died without leaving a will, his 
real estate should be apportioned equally among his heirs; 
and this equal division was to be made of most of his property 
in land, even if he did leave a will. He was given liberty 
freely to dispose by will of only a portion larger or smaller, 
according to the number of children. 

The proposal now made was that this disposable part, which 
a man might will to his eldest son if he chose, should go to 
him likewise, if there were no will, as a legal advantage over 
the other children. This was to be the law only for those 
who paid three hundred francs in direct taxes. As a matter 
of fact this law would affect probably not more than eighty 
thousand families out of six million. Furthermore, the 
father was in no way forced to constitute this preference 
for his eldest son, since he was left full liberty of testa- 
mentary disposition. Yet the mere suggestion threw the 
country into commotion. The prevailing thought was ex- 
pressed by the Duke of Broglie, who said : " This is no 
law. It is a manifesto against existing society. It is a 
forerunner of twenty other laws which, if your wisdom does 
not prevent it, will break in upon us and will leave no 
rest to the society of France, which has been the growth 
of the last forty years." The proposition was defeated in 
the Chamber of Peers. For several nights the streets of 
Paris were illuminated in gratitude for this escape from 
feudalism. 

These measures and failures, which were costing the min- 
istry much popularity, were crowned by an attempt to render 



88 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

Attempt to the press law more stringent. Charles X had long since re~ 
es roy e gj-g^^ed his act in abolishing the censorship. A bill was 

the press. "^^ proposed which wound an amazing mesh around the 
printing presses of France. So sweeping was it in char- 
acter, giving the Government a practically unlimited con- 
trol of all publications, both periodical, like the daily papers, 
and non-periodical, that it aroused immediately a remark- 
able opposition. It was denounced as barbaric by Chateau- 
briand, the foremost man of letters in France. " Printing," 
said Casimir-Perier, "is suppressed in France to the ad- 
vantage of Belgium." Those engaged in this business, as 
well as the prominent writers and members of the French 
Academy, protested with vigor. The bill passed the 
Chamber of Deputies, but in the Chamber of Peers an oppo- 
sition so intense developed that the ministry deemed it wise 
to withdraw the measure before it came to a vote. Paris 
was illuminated in honor of this escape. The provinces 
imitated the capital. These outbursts of joy were occa- 
sioned not only by the withdrawal of the press law. The 
people were already celebrating the fall of the hated VillMe 
ministry, which was felt to be imminent. 

Disband- The mistakes of this ministry, however, were not yet over. 

ment of the ^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ withdrawal of this press bill the Na- 

JN3,X10il3>i , 

Guard. tional Guard was reviewed by the King. The King was 

personally received with much warmth, but cries of " Long 
live the Charter," " Down with the Ministers, down with the 
Jesuits," were heard from the troops. Villele at once de- 
manded that these troops be disbanded. The King consented 
and it was done. This was a mistake for two reasons: be- 
cause it offended the bourgeoisie of Paris, thus far opposed 
to the ministry but loyal to the King, and because the men 
were permitted to retain their arms, of which three years 
later they were to make effective use. 

The ministry, conscious of rapidly waning power, did not 
propose to yield, but attempted to crush the opposition. 
It had been unable to get the press bill through Parliament. 



THE MARTIGNAC MINISTRY 89 

The chief resistance the ministry had encountered had come Attempt to 

from the Chamber of Peers, which had favored a moderate ^ *™P °^ . 

1 • 1 1-1 *^^ opposi- 

pohcj. Villele thought to overcome this by packing that ^j^j^ jj^ Par. 

chamber with men who would support the ministry through liament. 
thick and thin. Consequently seventy-six new peers were 
created, enough, it was thought, to enable the ministry to 
control that body thenceforth. But it was also clear that 
the opposition was growing in the Chamber of Deputies too. 
Although the ministry was able to get its measures through 
that chamber, its majority was gradually becoming smaller. 
Villele therefore decided to dissolve the Chamber, although 
it had yet four years to run. He expected by manipulation 
of the election to get an assembly in its place overwhelmingly 
in favor of the ministry. Thus, with the press shackled, 
and the Chamber of Peers and Chamber of Deputies con- 
trolled, the ministry could retrieve the rebuffs it had recently 
experienced and carry out its policy in all its vigor. 

Never did a minister make a greater mistake. The min- 
istry was overwhelmingly defeated in the elections. Its sup- 
porters numbered only 170; the combined opposing elements 
counted 250. Villele retired from office. 

The Martignac ministry now came in in January 1828. The 

The difficulties in its way were numerous. It had neither ^^ ^S^^^o 

•^ ministry, 

the favor of the King, nor the hearty support of the 

Chambers. Charles X told the new ministers, " Villele's pol- 
icy was mine, and I hope you will endeavor to carry it out 
?3 best you can." Martignac, however, made no such at- 
tempt, but strove rather to carry out a liberal policy, some- 
what like that of the years 1816-20. The professors, 
Guizot, Villemain, whose courses Villele had stopped, were 
reinstated. A somewhat more liberal press law was carried, 
abolishing censorship and the offense of " tendency." An 
educational law was enacted directed against the Jesuits and 
intended to please the more liberal religious element. But 
Martignac's course suited neither the Right nor the Left, 
and he shortly resigned. This pleased Charles X, who re- 



90 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

sented the liberalism of the ministry. Charles believed that 
he had the right to choose the ministers to suit himself, 
whether they pleased the Chamber or not. " I would rather 
saw wood," he said, " than be a king of the Enghsh type." 
The With the fall of the Martignac ministry in 1829 fell also 

minStry ^^^ ^^^^ attempt made under the rule of the Bourbon Legiti- 
mists to fuse old and new France, to reconcile monarchy and 
constitutional freedom. The announcement of the new min- 
isters was received with great popular indignation. The 
chief minister was Polignac, son of the Countess of Poli- 
gnac, the friend of Marie Antoinette. Pohgnac had beeij 
one of the leaders of the emigres at the outbreak of the 
Revolution, had joined in the Cadoudal conspiracy against 
Napoleon, had been sentenced to death, but had escaped with 
simply imprisonment, owing to the intervention of Josephine. 
In 1815 he had protested against the Charter, and had long 
refused to take the oath to support it. He had for years 
been very closely identified with Charles X, and had favored 
the most extreme laws proposed by him. Other ministers 
were Bourmont in the War OfBce, a man who was commonly 
supposed to have been a traitor to Napoleon, consequently 
to France, in 1815, and Labourdonnaye, Minister of the 
Interior, connected in the popular mind with the White Terror 
of 1815. Even Metternich, who could ordinarily view a 
policy of reaction with fortitude, considered the advent 
of such a ministry a matter of considerable gravity. " The 
change in the ministry is of the first importance," he wrote. 
" All the new ministers are pure royalists. Everything 
about the episode means counter-revolution." The feeling, 
that the appointment of this ministry was virtually a declara- 
tion of war to the bitter end against the modern society of 
France, was widespread, and was shared by all parties. 
Journals whose loyalty to the Bourbon monarchy was un- 
impeachable attacked the new ministry at once and in the 
most vigorous fashion. 

Liberals of every shade began to organize to meet the 



CONFLICT BETWEEN KING AND CHAMBER 91 

dangers which they felt were coming'. Societies were formed. Widespread 

Old societies, like the Carbonari, renewed their activity, j^^^f^ ^^^ 

^ to tne 
Men began to say that the House of Bourbon and a con- ministry. 

stitutlon were two Incompatible terms. A faction was organ- 
ized to prepare the way to the throne of the Duke of 
Orleans. Men began to study those chapters of English 
history which told how one prince could be put aside for 
another more to the liking of the nation. The groups op- 
posed to the new ministry differed widely from each other 
in belief and purpose, Orleanlsts, Bonapartists, Republicans ; 
but they were temporarily united in a common opposition. 
Indignation at the appointment of such a ministry was both 
widespread and deep, and became all the more vehement when 
Pollgnac declared his object to be " to reorganize society, 
to restore to the clergy its former preponderance in the 
state, to create a powerful aristocracy and to surround it 
with privileges." 

For the time being, however, the ministry remained in- Conflict 

Yj p 4" TTT p ii -M 

active, apparently amazed and checked by the remarkable _ _ 

ebullition of hostile feeling its appointment had called forth and the 
with the meeting of the Chambers. Early in March 1830 Chamber of 
began a conflict which, short and sharp, ended in the over- ^^^ ^^^" 
throw and exile of Charles X. The King opened the session 
with a speech which clearly revealed his irritation at the 
Opposition, and his emphatic intention to support the min- 
istry, '^.'he Chamber of Deputies, not at all intimidated, 
replied by an Address to the King, passed by a vote of 221 
to 181, which was virtually a demand for the dismissal of 
the unpopular ministry, that thus " constitutional harmony " 
might be restored. The King replied by declaring that " his 
decisions were unchangeable," and by dissolving the Chamber, 
hoping by means of new elections to secure one subservient 
to his will. But the people thought otherwise. The elec- 
tions resulted in a crushing defeat for the King and his 
ministry. Of the 221 who had voted for the Address, 202 
were returned; of the 181 who had voted against it only 



92 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

99 were returned. The total Opposition was increased from 
221 to 270. The ministry could count on less than 150 
votes in the new Chamber. The voters had spoken decisively. 
This Liberal majority was not opposed to the monarchy. 
Had the King been willing to make some concessions, had he 
dismissed the ministry, the majority of the Opposition would 
have been satisfied. Charles X was urged to take this course 
by the most absolute of rulers, the Emperor Alexander, and 
by the most absolute of ministers, Metternich. Polignac was 
willing to go. But Charles had so conspicuously identified 
himself with his minister that yielding on that point seemed 
to him like abdicating. His own brother, Louis XVI, had 
come to a tragic end, he said, because he had made conces- 
sions. The ministry remained. 

^^® Charles was unconquerably stubborn. Other methods of 

ordinances .. ,. ^ i • cmii ii -i 

of Julv gaining his ends having lailed, he now determined upon 

coercion. He resolved to issue a series of ordinances to meet 
the demands of the situation. The ordinances consequently 
appeared in the Moniteur, the official organ, July 26, 1830. 
They were four in number. The first suspended the liberty 
of the press. For the publication of any periodical a pre- 
liminary authorization of the Government was thenceforth to 
be required. This authorization must be renewed every three 
months and might be revoked at any moment. Thus the edi- 
tors of France could not lawfully publish another issue without 
obtaining the permission of the Government. This, it was 
supposed, would effectually silence the opposition press. The 
second ordinance dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, just 
elected and overwhelmingly against the ministry, before that 
Chamber had ever met. This was to sport with the voters' 
rights to choose the deputies whom they desired. The reason 
assigned for this step was that during the late elections 
methods had been used " to deceive and mislead the 
electors." To prevent the recurrence of such manoeuvers a 
third ordinance was issued gravely altering the electoral 
system. The number of deputies was reduced again to 258, 



THE JULY ORDINANCES 93 

one-fifth renewable each year. The property qualification 
for the suffrage was so manipulated as practically to ex- 
clude the rich bourgeoisie, merchants, and manufacturers, 
liberals and partisans of the new regime born of the Revolu- 
tion, and to lodge political power almost entirely in the 
hands of the class of great landed proprietors, chiefly mem- 
bers of the nobility of the old regime. The electorate was 
hereby reduced by about three-fourths. Instead of about 
100,000 voters there were now to be about 25,000. The 
fourth ordinance ordered new elections and fixed the date for 
the meeting of the new Chamber of Deputies that would 
emerge from those elections. 

The King had persuaded himself that in issuing these ordi- Charles X's 
nances he was acting not against the Charter but in con- f th 

formity with it. He based his right upon an interpretation charter, 
of Article 14, which gave him the power to make " the 
necessary regulations and ordinances for the execution of 
the laws and the safety of the state." He held that the king 
alone had the right to interpret the Charter, as the king 
alone had granted it. His interpretation was monstrous 
and his application of it pure absolutism, since, if the ordi- 
nances were legal, the most carefully safeguarded clauses 
of the Charter could be made null and void by the monarch's 
act. Needless to say, the Charter did not give the king 
the right co alter or abolish the fundamental provisions of 
the Charter. If so the French people would enjoy their 
liberties simply at the humor of the monarch. Not to have 
opposed these ordinances would have been to acquiesce quietly 
in the transformation of the French government into 
the absolute monarchy of the time of Louis XIV. If the 
French cared for the liberties they enjoyed, they could not 
permit this action of the King to stand. They must repel 
the assault upon their political system to whatever extent 
might be necessary, for the first and third ordinances were 
plainly violations of the Charter. 

Yet Charles X and his minister, Polignac, were confident 



94 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 

The King's that there would be no trouble. The ordinances affected, 
. they said, only a few people — newspaper men and those who 

had the right to vote — an exceedingly small minority. No 
right that the masses of the people enjoyed was infringed. 
The people, therefore, would have no motive or desire to 
rise to aid simply the privileged few. It was the belief 
of the ministry that the mass of the nation was indifferent 
to the electoral law and was satisfied with material pros- 
perity. The Government, entertaining this view of the 
situation, took no serious precautions against trouble. The 
Minister of Police assured his colleagues that Paris would 
not stir. Charles X, having signed the fateful decrees, 
and feeling secure, went off to hunt at Rambouillet. On 
his return that evening everything was quiet and the Duchess 
of Berry congratulated him that at last he was king. 
The opposi- The constitutional party, in truth, was poorly organized 

for resistance and moved slowly. The ordinances were aimed 
liberal -^ 

editors of ^^ the newspapers and the Chamber. The Chamber had 
Paris. not yet met. Its members were scattered over France, 

although some were in Paris. The first step in resistance 
was taken by the liberal editors of Paris. Under the leader- 
ship of Thiers they published a protest. " The reign of 
law has been interrupted; that of force has begun. The 
Government has violated the law; we are absolved from 
obedience. We shall attempt to publish our papers without 
asking for the authorization which is imposed upon us. The 
Government has this day lost the character of legality which 
gives it the right to exact obedience. We shall resist it 
in that which concerns ourselves. It is for France to 
decide how far her own resistance shall extend." On the 
following day the liberal members of the Chamber of Depu- 
ties drew up a formal protest against the ordinances, but 
outlined no course of action. The Revolution of 1830, 
however, was not to be accomplished by the journalists or 
the deputies. 

As the significance of the ordinances came to be more 



THE JULY REVOLUTION 95 

clearly seen, popular anger began to manifest Itself. Crowds 
assembled in the streets shouting " Down with the Minis- 
try ! " ; " Long live the Charter ! " Fuel was added to the 
rising flame by the appointment of Marmont, odious as a 
traitor to France in 1814, to the command of the troops in 
Paris. The workmen of the printing establishments, thrown 
out of employment, began agitating, and other workmen 
joined them. 

On Wednesday, July 28, civil war broke out. The in- The July 
surgents were mainly old soldiers, Carbonari, and a group of B,evolutio3i. 
republicans and workmen — men who hated the Bourbons, 
who followed the tricolor flag as the true national emblem, 
rather than the white flag of the royal house. This war 
lasted three days. It was the July Revolution — the Glorious 
Three Days. It was a street war and was limited to Paris. 
The insurgents were not very numerous, probably not more 
than ten thousand. But the Government had itself prob- 
ably not more than fourteen thousand troops in Paris. The 
insurrection was not difficult to organize. The streets of 
Paris were narrow and crooked. Through such tortuous 
lanes it was impossible for the Government to send artillery, 
a weapon which it alone possessed. The streets were paved The 
with large stones. These could be torn up and piled in character 
such a w?.y as to make fortresses for the msurgents. In fighting, 
the night of the 27th-28th the streets were cut up by hun- 
dreds of barricades made in this manner of paving stones, 
of overturned wagons, of barrels and boxes, of furniture, of 
trees and objects of every description. Against such ob- 
stacles the soldiers could make but little progress. If they 
overthrew a barricade and passed on, it would immediately be 
built up again behind them more threatening than before 
because cutting their line of reinforcements and of possible 
retreat. Moreover, the soldiers had only the flint-lock gun, 
a weapon no better than that in the hands of insurgents. 
Again, the officers had no knowledge of street fighting, where- 
as the insurgents had an intimate knowledge of the city, of 



96 



FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 



The 

ordinances 

withdrawn. 



The 

candidacy 
of louis 
Philippe. 



its streets and lanes. Moreover, the soldiers were reluctant 
to fight against the people. The fighting continued two 
days amid the fierce heat of July. About six hundred lives 
were lost. Finally Charles, seeing his troops worsted and 
gradually driven back out of the city, determined to with- 
draw the ordinances. His messengers, who were bringing 
this news to the insurgents, were greeted with cries of " Too 
late, too late I " The insurgents were no longer content 
with the withdrawal of the odious measures that had pre- 
cipitated the contest. They would have nothing more to 
do with Charles X. But the determination of the govern- 
ment to succeed his was a delicate matter. Those who had 
done the actual fighting undoubtedly wanted the republic. 
But the journalists and deputies and the majority of the 
Parisians were opposed to such a solution. They now took 
the aggressive and skilfully brought forward the candidacy 
of Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, representing a younger 
branch of the royal family, a man who had always sympa- 
thized with liberal opinions. On July 30 appeared a mani- 
festo written by Thiers in the interest of this candidacy, 
running as follows : " Charles X may no longer return to 
Paris : he has caused the blood of the people to flow. The 
Republic would expose us to frightful divisions ; it would 
embroil us with Europe. The Duke of Orleans is a prince 
devoted to the cause of the Revolution. . . . The Duke of 
Orleans is a citizen king. The Duke of Orleans has borne 
the tricolors in the heat of battle. The Duke of Orleans 
alone can again bear them; we wish no others. The Duke 
of Orleans makes no announcement. He awaits our will. 
Let us proclaim that will and he will accept the Charter, as 
we have always understood it and desired it. From the 
French people will he hold his crown." 

On the following day the deputies who were in Paris met 
and invited the Duke of Orleans " to exercise the functions 
of Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom." In a proclamation 
announcing this fact to the people it was stated : " He will 



ABDICATION OF CHARLES X 97 

respect our rights, for he will hold his from us." The 
Duke of Orleans accepted the position until the opening 
of the Chambers which should determine upon the future form 
of government for France. He added, " The Charter shall 
henceforth be a reality." But the transition from the old 
to the new was not yet completed. The people, who, during 
these three hot July days, had done the actual fighting, 
desired a republic. They had their quarters at the Hotel 
de Ville and must be reckoned with. The final decision be- 
tween monarchy and republic lay in the hands of Lafayette, 
the real leader of the Republicans. It was of the highest 
importance to know his attitude. 

On July 31 Louis Philippe rode to the Hotel de Ville dressed 
in the uniform of a general and wearing the tricolor cockade. 
He appeared on the balcony. Lafayette appeared with 
him and embraced him. The effect of the little pantomime 
was instantaneous. The crowd shouted for Louis Philippe. 
This popular applause ended the brief hope of the Repub- 
licans. The crowd virtually gave another sovereign to 
France. 

Charles X now accepted the revolution. He abdicated, as Abdication 
did his eldest son, the Duke of Angouleme, in favor of the 
posthumous son of the late Duke of Berry, the Duke of 
Bordeaux, later well known in the history of France as 
the Count of Chambord and as Henry V, the title he would 
have worn had he ever become king. The leaders of the 
movement had, however, other ideas concerning the future 
government of France. They wished to be entirely rid of 
this legitimate royal line. Their first step was directed 
against Charles X and his Immediate family. Desiring no 
repetition of the experience of the former revolutionists of 
having a king as prisoner they sent troops against him to 
frighten him out of the country. The method succeeded. 
Slowly the King and his family withdrew toward the coast, 
whence they embarked for England (August 14). For 
two years Charles X lived In Great Britain, keeping a 



98 FRANCE DURING THE RESTORATION 



Louis 

Philippe 

King. 



The end 
of the 
Restora- 
tion. 



melancholy court in Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, of somber 
memory in the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. Removing 
later to Austria, he died in 1836. 

The Chamber of Deputies, whose dissolution by Charles X 
before it had ever come together, had been one of the causes 
of this revolution, organized itself August 3 and undertook 
a revision of the Charter. It then called Louis Philippe 
to the throne, ignoring the claims of the legitimate prince, 
the nine-year-old Duke of Bordeaux. The revolution was 
now considered over. It had had no such scope as had 
that of 1789. It grew out of no deep-seated abuses, out 
of no crying national distress. France was growing every 
day richer and more prosperous. It was an unexpected, 
impromptu affair. Not dreamed of July 25th, it was over 
a week later. One king had been overthrown, another created, 
and the Charter slightly modified. Parliamentary govern- 
ment had been preserved; a return to autocracy prevented. 

The essential weakness of the monarchy of the Restoration 
was shown by the ease with which it was terminated. It 
always labored under the odium of its origin, having been 
brought back, as the phrase went, *' in the baggage of 
the Allies," the enemies and vanquishers of France. The 
very presence of Louis XVIII and Charles X in France was 
a reminder of the humiliation of that country, was a trophy 
of her enemies' victories. Moreover, it was an inevitable 
fatality of this monarchy that its natural representatives 
and counselors had been long in exile, did not understand 
the complete intellectual transformation of their country- 
men, had themselves always lived in a world of ideas alien 
to modern France, viewed the country they had to rule 
through a distorting though inevitable medium of precon- 
ceptionsj prejudices, and convictions. The Bourbon mon- 
archy accomplished much that was salutary. It restored 
the sadly disordered finances of the nation. Its policy in 
foreign affairs, in Greece, in Algeria, even in Spain, gave 
general satisfaction. But its ideal in government was the 



ACCESSION OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 99 

old, aristocratic regime and it was impelled by its very 
nature to seek to approach that ideal. When it approached 
too near it suddenly found itself toppled over. 

This ends the Restoration and the reign of Louis Philippe 
now begins. Those who brought about the final overthrow 
of the elder Bourbons received no adequate reward. They 
had the tricolor flag once more, but the rich bourgeoisie had 
the government. The Republicans yielded, but without re- 
nouncing their principles or their hopes. Cavaignac, one 
of their leaders, when thanked for the abnegation of his 
party, replied, " You are wrong in thanking us ; we have 
yielded because we are not yet strong enough. Later it 
will be diiFerent." The revolution, in fact, gave great 
impetus to the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. 



CHAPTER V 
REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 

Wide- The influence of the Revolution of 1830 was felt all over 

„ . ' Europe — in Poland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, England, 

the July ^nd the Netherlands. It was the signal and encourage- 
Eevolution. ment for wide-spread popular movements which for a short 
time seemed to threaten the whole structure erected in 1815 
at Vienna. It created an immediate problem for the rulers 
of Europe. They had bound themselves in 1815 to guard 
against the outbreak of " revolution," to watch over and 
assure the " general tranquillity " of Europe. They had 
adopted and applied since then, as we have seen, the doctrine 
of intervention in the affairs of countries infected by revolu- 
tionary fever, as the great preservative of public order. 
Would this self-constituted international police acquiesce in 
the overthrow of the legitimate king of France by the mob 
of Paris.'' Now that revolution had again broken out in 
that restless country, would they " intervene " as they had 
done in Spain and Italy.'' At first they were disposed to 
do so. Metternich's immediate impulse was to organize a 
coalition against this " king of the barricades." But when 
the time came this was seen to be impracticable, for 
Russia was occupied with a revolution in Poland, 
Powerless- Austria with revolutions in Italy, Prussia with simi- 
ness of the -^^^ movements in Germany, and England was engrossed in 
Alliance. ^^^ most absorbing discussion of domestic problems she had 
faced in many decades. Moreover, England approved the 
revolution. All the powers, therefore, recognized Louis 
Philippe, though with varying indications of annoyance. In 
one particular, consequently, the settlement of 1815 was 
undone forever. The elder branch of the House of Bourbon, 

100 



THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS 101 

put upon the throne of France bj the Allies of 1815, was 
now pushed from it, and the revolution, hated of the other 
powers, had done it. 

THE RISE OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM 

Another part of the diplomatic structure of 1815 was The 
now overthrown. The Congress of Vienna had created an Congress of 
• n •/» • 1 1 c -n 1 ;-• Vienna and 

essentially artincial state to the north of France, the Kmg- ^j^g Kine- 

dom of the Netherlands. It had done this explicitly for dom of the 
the purpose of having a barrier against France. The Bel- ^ether- 
gian provinces, hitherto Austrian, were in 1815 annexed 
to Holland to strengthen that state in order that it might 
be in a position to resist attack until the other powers should 
come to its rescue. The Congress had also declared and 
guaranteed the neutrality of the new state as an additional 
protection against an aggressive France. 

But it was easier to declare these two peoples formally 
united under one ruler than to make them in any real sense 
a single country. Though it might seem by a glance at 
the map that the peoples of this little comer of Europe 
must be essentit Uy homogeneous, such was not at all the case. 
There were many more points of difference than of similarity 
between them. Their historic evolution had not been at ^ union 
all the same. Except under the overpowering rule of Na- 
poleon they had not been under the same government since mentally 
15T9. Holland had been a republic. The Belgian prov- dissimilar 
inces had remained subject to Spain at the time that Hoi- P^°P^®s- 
land had acquired her independence and had later passed 
under Austrian rule. They were also divided by language. 
The Dutch spoke a Teutonic tongue, the Belgians either 
Flemish, a Teutonic speech, yet differing from the Dutch, 
or Walloon, allied to the French. They were divided by re- 
ligion. The Dutch were Protestants and Calvinists ; the Bel- 
gians devoted Catholics. They differed in their economic life 
and principles. The Dutch were an agricultural and com- 
mercial people and were inclined to free trade ; the Belgians 



102 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



The spirit 
of nation- 
ality awak- 
ened among 
the 
Belgians. 



Difficulties 
in the 
drafting 
of the 
Constitu- 
tion. 



a manufacturing people and inclined toward protection. 
There was one form of union, however, under which such dis- 
similar peoples might have lived harmoniously together — that 
of a personal union. Each might have had the same monarch 
but have kept its own institutions and followed its own line 
of development. But at Vienna no thought was given to 
such an arrangement. It was decided that the union should 
be " close and complete." 

This was the first disappointment for the Belgians. They 
had hoped that henceforth they Avould have a large measure 
of independence. They had never yet constituted a nation. 
For centuries they had been subject to the Spaniards and 
the Austrians. But the French Revolution had powerfully 
aroused the longing for a national existence. This desire 
for liberty and independence, thwarted in 1815, operated 
with growing force throughout the period of their connection 
with Holland. The Belgians saw themselves simply added to 
and subjected to another people inferior in numbers to 
themselves. 

Friction began at once. The king, William I, had prom- 
ised a constitution to his united kingdom and appointed a 
commission to draw it up. The commission consisted of 
an equal number of Dutch and Belgian members. There 
were discussions as to the capital. The Dutch desired 
Amsterdam; the Belgians, Brussels. No decision was pos- 
sible, and it was decided consequently to make no mention 
of the subject in the Constitution. It was agreed that there 
should be a legislature consisting of two chambers, an Upper 
Chamber appointed by the king, a Lower elected by the 
provincial estates. The latter was to be composed of 55 
Dutch and 55 Belgian members. The Belgians objected 
to this equality, saying that they were a population of over 
three million, while Holland had less than two million. Hol- 
land replied that it had been a sovereign and independent 
state for over two centuries and that it would not admit 
Belgian predominance; also that wealth and general state 



AN UNSATISFACTORY UNION 103 

of civilization must be taken into account; moreover, that 
if population were regarded as the sole basis of the state 
Holland had a right to count in her colonies. She insisted 
upon a representation at least equal to that of the newly 
incorporated territories. As neither would recognize the 
predominance of the other, equality of representation was the 
only possible outcome. 

Equal rights were granted all forms of worship. This 
was denounced by the Belgian Catholics. The Constitution 
gave great power to the king. The legislative bodies could 
reject but not amend bills. The right of trial by jury 
was not guaranteed, a right the Belgians had enjoyed under 
the French rule. The Constitution was now submitted to 
assemblies of the two peoples for approval. The Dutch 
assembly accepted it but the Belgian rejected it. Never- 
theless, by an arbitrary exercise of power the King declared 
it in force. 

A union so inharmoniously begun was never satisfactory Friction 
to the Belgians. Friction was constant. The Belgians between 
objected with Justice that the officials in the state and army 3gig.ia,ns 
were almost all Dutch. They objected to the King's attempts and the 
to force the Dutch language into a position of undue privi- Dutch, 
lege. They objected to the system of taxation, particularly 
to two odious taxes on bread and meat, now imposed. Re- 
ligious differences inflamed passions still further. Though 
the fact remains that during this period and largely because 
of this union the material prosperity of the Belgians ad- 
vanced greatly, still the union never became popular. The 
evident desire of the King to fuse his two peoples into one 
was a constant irritation. The system was more and more 
disliked by the Belgians as the years went by. 

Thus, long before the revolution in France, there was a The 
strong movement in Belgium in favor of larger liberty, of ii^fli^ence of 
self-government. Few as yet, however, dreamed of a dis- Revolution, 
ruption of the kingdom. There was a lively sense of griev- 
ances too long endured. The July Revolution now came 



104 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



The 

Belgians 
declare 
their inde- 
pendence. 



as a spark In the midst of all this inflammable material. 
On August S5, 1830, rioting broke out in Brussels. It 
was not at first directed toward independence. The Bel- 
gians would have been satisfied if each country could have 
been given its own government under the same king. The 
King rejected this proposal to change a " real " into a 
" personal '* union. His troops attempted to put down the 
insurrection. There were in September several days of fight- 
ing in Brussels as there had been in Paris, and of the same 
character. The royal troops were driven out, and on Octo- 
ber 4 the Provisional Government that had arisen out of 
the turmoil declared Belgium independent and called a con- 
gress to determine the future form of government. The 
King now prepared to make concessions, but it was too late. 
The congress decided in favor of a monarchy as the form 
of government, adopted a liberal constitution, and at the 
suggestion of England and France elected as king Leopold 
of Coburg, who had just declined the new throne of Greece, 
but who accepted this. 

The task of greatest difficulty was to get the new kingdom 
recognized by the Great Powers, which in 1815 had added 
Belgium to Holland. Would they consent to the undoing 
of their own work? The king, William I, was resolved 
not to give up Belgium and was preparing to reconquer it, 
which he probably could have done, as Belgium had no 
army. Everything, therefore, depended on the powers 
which had suppressed revolution in Spain and Italy ten 
years before. Would they do it again in the interest of 
the treaties of 1815.'' Now, however, they were divided, and 
in this division lay the salvation of the new state. The 
Tsar wished to intervene in order " to oppose an armed 
barrier to the progress of revolution." Prussia seemed simi- 
larly inclined, but Louis Philippe, knowing that his own 
throne would be overthrown by the Parisians if he supinely 
allowed these absolute monarchies to crush the new liberties 
of the Belgians, gave explicit warning that if they inter- 



RISE OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM 105 

vened France also would intervene against them " in order 

to hold the balance even " until the whole question should 

be settled by the powers, in congress assembled. 

In November, 1830, an insurrection broke out in Poland, Interven- 

which effectually prevented Russia from acting in the Belgian *^°^ ^^ *^® 

matter, caused Prussia to fix her attention upon her eastern j^m^^^ 

boundaries, and filled Austria with apprehension. Thus the prevented 

Holy Allies, hitherto so redoubtable as the opponents of ^y events 
, ,. ^ , . ^^ ... in Poland, 

revolutionary movements everywhere, were m no position 

to stamp out such a movement in Belgium. This part of 
the work of the Congress of Vienna had consequently been 
undone. A new state had arisen in Europe as a result of 
revolution. Its revolutionary origin, however, was covered 
up by the action of the powers in now consenting to it. 
Conferences of the powers, held in London at the close of 
1830 and in 1831, accepted the separation of Belgium 
from Holland, guaranteed the neutrality of the new king- Hecogni- 
dom, and sanctioned the choice by the Belgians of Leopold ^^^ ° ^ 
as their ruler. The powers had the satisfaction of knowing Belgium, 
that though the territorial arrangements of Vienna were 
altered, France, the arch-enemy, had gained nothing. More- 
over, the monarchical principle was saved, as Belgium 
had been prevented from becoming a republic; but the 
new monarchy was constitutional, a fact pleasing to 
England and France, but odious to the three eastern 
powers. 

The success of the Belgian revolution had to a considerable 
extent been rendered possible by a revolution in Poland, 
which ended in disastrous failure. Neither Russia, nor 
Prussia, nor Austria would have acquiesced so easily in 
the dismemberment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands had 
they not feared that if they went to war with France con- 
cerning it, France would in turn aid the Poles, and the 
future of the Poles was of far greater immediate importance 
to them than the future of the Netherlanders. The French 
Revolution of 1830 was followed by the rise of the Kingdom 



106 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



of Belgium; but it was also followed by the disappearance 
of the Kingdom of Poland. 



The resto- 
ration of 
the King- 
dom of 
Poland in 
1815. 



REVOLUTION IN POLAND 

Poland had been down to the last quarter of the eighteenth 
century an independent state. During that quarter its in- 
dependence had been destroyed and its territory seized by its 
three neighbors, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, in the famous 
partitions of 1772, 1793, and 1795. But the Polish people's 
passionate love of country was not destroyed and their hope 
that Revolutionary and Napoleonic France would restore 
their independence was intense. It was, however, destined 
to disappointment. But with the fall of Napoleon hope 
sprang up in another quarter. Alexander I, Tsar of Rus- 
sia, was in 1815 filled with generous and romantic aspira- 
tions and was for a few years a patron of liberal ideas in 
various countries. Under the influence of these ideas he 
conceived the plan of restoring the old Kingdom of Poland. 
Poland should be a kingdom entirely separate from the Em- 
pire of Russia. He should be Emperor of Russia and King 
of Poland. The union of the two states would be simply 
personal. 

Alexander had desired to restore Poland to the full extent 
of its possessions in the eighteenth century. To render 
this possible Prussia and Austria must relinquish the prov- 
inces they had acquired in the three partitions. This, as 
we have seen, was not accomplished at the Congress of 
Vienna. There were henceforth four Polands — Prussian 
Poland, Austrian Poland, Russian Poland, and a new small 
independent Poland, created by the Congress of Vienna, the 
Republic of Cracow, The new Polish kingdom, erected by 
Alexander I in 1815, was then simply a part of historic 
Poland, nor did it indeed include all of the Polish territories 
that Russia had acquired. 

Of this new state Alexander was to be king. To it he 
granted toward the close of 1815 a Constitution. There was 



POLAND A CONSTITUTIONAL KINGDOM 107 

to be a Diet meeting every two years. This was to consist Alexander I 
of a Senate, nominated by the king, and of a Chamber 
of Nuncios, elected by the assembhes of the nobles and by tion to 
the communes. The latter chamber was to be elected for Poland, 
six years, one-third renewable every two years. Roman 
Catholicism wa,s recognized as the state religion; but a 
generous measure of toleration was given to other sects. 
Liberty of the press was guaranteed, subject to laws de- 
signed to prevent its abuse. The Polish language was 
made the official language. All positions in the govern- 
ment were to be filled by Poles, not by Russians. No people 
in central Europe possessed such liberal institutions as those 
with which the Poles were now invested. A prosperous 
career as a constitutional monarchy seemed about to begin. 
The Poles had never enjoyed so much civil freedom, and 
they were now receiving a considerable measure of home-rule. 

But this regime, well-meant and full of promise, en- Friction 

countered obstacles from the start. The Russians were ^^^^^^^ 

iTr»ii 1 -11 *^6 Poles 

opposed to the idea of a restored Poland, and particularly ^^^ ^^le 

to a constitutional Poland, when they themselves had no Russians, 
constitution. Why should their old enemy be so greatly 
favored when they, the real supporters of the Tsar, were 
not.'' The hatred of Russians and Poles, a fact centuries 
old, continued undiminished. Moreover, what the dominant 
class of Poles desired, far more than liberal government, was 
independence. They could never forget the days of their 
prosperity. Unfortunately they had not the wisdom or 
self-control to use their present considerable liberties for 
the purpose of building up the social solidarity which Poland 
had always lacked by redressing the crying grievances of 
the serfs against the nobles, by making all Poles feel that 
they were a single people rather than two classes of oppres- 
sors and oppressed. They did not seek gradually to de- 
velop under the segis of their constitution a true and vigor- 
ous nationality, which might some day be strong enough to 
win its independence, but they showed their dissatisfaction 



108 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



Influence 
of the July 
Revolution. 



The Polish 
expectation 
of foreign 
aid disap- 
pointed. 



with the limited powers Alexander had granted and shortly 
became obstructive and censorious — conduct lacking in tact 
and judgment. 

The Diet criticized certain acts of the Tsar's officials and 
the Tsar warned the Diet. Friction developed from time 
to time, and, moreover, as the years went by, Alexander's 
early liberalism faded away. His successor, Nicholas I, 
who came to the throne in 1825, was a thorough-going 
absolutist. The spirit of unrest was strong among the mass 
of the lesser Polish nobility, a class little accustomed to self- 
control and also strongly influenced by the democratic ideas 
of Western Europe. This party was now inflamed by the 
reports of the successful revolution in France; by the belief 
that the French would aid them if they strove to imitate their 
example. When, therefore, the Tsar summoned the Polish 
army to prepare for a campaign whose object was the sup- 
pression of the Belgian revolution, the determination of the 
Liberals was quickly made. They rose in insurrection on 
the 29th of November, 1830. The Russian Grand Duke 
Constantine was driven from Warsaw. The revolutionists 
first tried negotiation with the Tsar, hoping in this way 
to secure their demands for larger political liberty. The 
attempt failed, but consumed time which the revolutionists 
could have used to much better advantage in arousing and 
organizing the country. When the Tsar sent word that 
Poland had but two alternatives — unconditional submission 
or annihilation — then the more radical revolutionists seized 
control of the movement, declared that the House of Roman- 
off^ had ceased to rule in Poland, and prepared for a life and 
death struggle. 

Russia's military resources, however, were so great that 
Poland could not hope alone to achieve her national inde- 
pendence. The Poles expected foreign intervention, but no in- 
tervention came. Enthusiasm for the Poles was widespread 
among the people in France, in England, and in Germany. 
But the Governments, none of which was controlled by public 



THE POLISH INSURRECTION 109 

opinion, refused to move. Louis Philippe, feeling his new 
throne quite insecure, did not wish to hazard it in the vicissi- 
tudes of a war. The revolution from which he had himself 
profited was a half-way affair. Revolutionary flames feed 
each other. If France should aid Poland the restless elements 
at home would be encouraged to go further and insist 
upon a thorough change in France which would endanger 
his position. England was not disposed to injure 
Russia, which might somewhere else wreak vengeance 
upon her. Prussia and Austria felt that an independent 
Poland would be a menace to them, as it would seek to 
win their Polish possessions. Moreover, patrons of 
reaction as they were, ought they to become, for no 
reason better than a popular sentiment, patrons of 
revolution ? 

Thus Poland was left to fight alone with Russia and of The failure 
the outcome there could be no doubt. The Poles fought °^ *^® }^' 

*\11 IT P C t i O Tl 

with great bravery, but without good leadership, without 
careful organization, without a spirit of subordination to 
military authorities. The war went on from January 1831 
until September of that year, when Warsaw fell before 
the Russians. The results of this ill-advised and ill-executed 
insurrection were deplorable in the extreme. Poland ceased 
to exist as a separate kingdom and became merely a province 
of the Russian Empire. Its Constitution was abolished and 
it was henceforth ruled with great severity and arbitrariness. 
The insurgents were savagely punished. Many were exe- 
cuted, many sent to Siberia. Thousands of Polish officers 
and soldiers escaped to the countries of western Europe and 
became a restless element in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, al- 
ways ready to fight for liberty. Even the Polish language 
seemed doomed, so repressive was the policy now followed 
by Russia. The Poles' sole satisfaction was a highly 
altruistic one, that by their revolt they had contributed 
greatly to the success of the revolutions in France and 
Belgium. 



110 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



Italy after 
the revolu- 
tions of 
1820. 



Revolu- 
tionary 
movements 
in 1831. 



The 

Italians 
receive Ho 
help from 
France. 



REVOLUTION IN ITALY 

Another country which felt the revolutionary wave of 
1830 was Italy. The revolutions of 1820 and 1821 had 
occurred in northern and southern Italy. They had been 
easily crushed, largely by Austrian arms. During the next 
decade Austrian influence weighed ever more heavily upon 
the peninsula. Discontent with existing conditions was 
general. The various governments were despotic, reaction- 
ary, unenlightened. The Carbonari were constantly plot- 
ting new insurrections. In 1830 Prince Metternich de- 
clared Italy to be of all European lands the one which 
had the greatest tendency to revolution. 

Metternich's diagnosis was destined to immediate vindica- 
tion. Revolutions broke out in the states of central Italy 
in 1831. The Prince of Modena and the Duchess of Parma, 
Marie Louise, the former Empress, were forced to flee from 
their states. More serious was the rising in the Papal 
States against the government of the priests. In the Ro- 
magna, the northern part of the Papal States, Bologna, the 
center of the disturbance, declared the temporal power of 
the Papacy at an end. Nearly every town in the States 
except Rome joined the movement. 

The revolutionists expected the inevitable hostility of 
Austria but hoped for the support of France as well as 
of the people in other Italian states. But France was a 
most uncertain reed. Louis Philippe desired peace above 
all things, not wishing to risk his newly acquired power 
in the chances of a war so far away and with so strong 
a state as Austria. His prime minister declared in a cele- 
brated speech that " French blood belongs to France alone," 
a phrase odious to all Liberals as in it there was only egoism. 
Louis Philippe, too, was probably influenced by fear of the 
rise anew of Bonapartism out of an Italian war. The two 
sons of Louis Napoleon of Holland had off'ered their services 
to the Italian insurgents. Further, might not Austria, 



AUSTRIAN INTERVENTION IN ITALY 111 

irritated, permit Napoleon's son, the Duke of Reichstadt, 
now a virtual prisoner at Vienna, to return to France, in 
which case Louis Philippe's power would probably founder 
quickly? Feeling his position strong, Metternich decided 
to intervene and suppress the insurrection. Austrian troops 
were sent southward. The exiled rulers were easily restored. 
The Pope recovered his provinces. But a conference of 
the five great powers at this juncture demanded that he 
carry out extensive reforms, mainly in the direction of put- 
ting the government into the hands of laymen. The Aus- 
trian forces were then withdrawn. But the papal promises, 
not being kept, insurrection broke out again in 1832. Again 
the Papal Government was powerless to maintain itself. The 
Austrians once more crossed the frontier, at the re- Austrian 
quest of the Pope. But this time France intervened, not i^^terveu- 
in the interest of the Italians but, as she held, in the general 
interest of the European equilibrium which would be upset 
by the predominance of Austria in Italy. Asserting that 
she had as good a right to be in the Papal States as had 
Austria, she seized the fortress of Ancona, announcing that 
she proposed to stay there as long as Austrian troops re- 
mained. All this was a mere episode in the game of the 
balance of power. The two powers watched each other on 
the Pope's domains until 1838 when, the Austrians having 
withdrawn their troops, France gave up Ancona. Absolu- 
tism was restored in the Papal States and in the duchies. 

Thus another attempt of Italians to direct their own The results 

affairs had failed. The leaders were incapable, the odds too °^ *^^ 

insurrec- 
great. But there were certam results of importance. The tjons. 

absolute necessity of driving Austria out of the peninsula, 

if the peninsula was ever to have a career of its own, was 

proved once more; also the difficulty of driving her out. 

The hostility of the Papacy to any such project was again 

shown. The temporal power of the Pope had by some of his 

own subjects been declared at an end — a suggestive precedent. 

The ambition of the leaders, too, had been to make Rome 



112 



REVOLUTIONS BEYOND FRANCE 



Revolution 

in 

Qermany. 



New 

measures 
of re- 
pression. 



the capital of a new state of Italy. The revolutions of 
1820 and 1821 had mainly been the work of military circles. 
The movements of 1831 and 1832 were joined by many 
merchants and laborers. Liberalism was appealing with 
increasing force to classes of the population hitherto passive 
or ignored. Liberalism was becoming more democratic. 
But for the time being reaction again held sway in Italy. 

REVOLUTION IN GERMANY 

Thus in 1830 revolution raged with varying vehemence 
all about Germany — in France, in Belgium, in Poland, and 
in Italy. The movement also affected Germany itself. In 
Brunswick, Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, and in two Saxon duchies 
revolutionary movements broke out with the result that sev- 
eral new constitutions were added to those already granted. 
The new ones were chiefly in North German, whereas the 
earlier ones had been mainly in South German states. But 
the two great states, Austria and Prussia, passed unscathed 
and set themselves to bring about a reaction, as soon as 
the more pressing dangers in Poland and Italy and France 
were over, and they themselves felt secure. Using certain 
popular demonstrations, essentially insignificant, with all the 
effect with which he had previously used the Wartburg 
festival, Metternich succeeded in carrying reaction further 
than he had been able to even in the Carlsbad Decrees of 
1819. Those decrees were aimed chiefly at the universities 
and the press. New regulations were adopted in 1832 and 
1834) by which he secured not only the renewal of these but 
the enactment of additional repressive measures. 

In 1832 six new articles were adopted by the Diet of 
the Confederation, by which the suppression of liberalism was 
rendered more thorough than ever. By them every German 
sovereign was bound to refuse any petition of his local assem- 
bly that might impair his sovereignty ; every assembly was 
forbidden to refuse its sovereign the taxes necessary to carry 
on the government or to use the taxing power to force 



REPRESSION IN GERMANY 113 

concessions from the prince, or to pass any laws prejudicial 
to the objects of the Confederation. A committee was to 
be appointed by the Diet to watch over the legislation of 
the different states, and to report all measures that threat- 
ened the rights of the Diet or of the individual sovereigns. 
The Federal Diet was made a kind of Supreme Court with 
power to interpret the fundamental laws of the Confedera- 
tion and to decide what state laws were inconsistent with 
them, that is, were unconstitutional. 

The Diet also passed other repressive measures forbidding Metternicli 
political societies, public meetings, and revolutionary badges, ^^P'^^™® 
and promising aid to sovereigns in case of need. The de- 
crees against the universities were enforced with renewed 
vigor. Thus not only universities, but chambers of deputies 
were now under the Metternich system. This was Metter- 
nich's crowning achievement in Germany. Again a persecu- 
tion of professors, students, and journalists, surpassing pre- 
vious ones, was instituted. Obstinate chambers of deputies 
were dissolved. Constitutional life in the few states where it 
existed was reduced to a minimum. The political history of 
Germany offers but little interest until the great mid-century 
uprising of 1848 shook this entire system of negation and 
repression to the ground. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

The career Louis Philippe, the new monarch of the French, was 
Philippe ah-eady in his fifty-seventh year. He was the son of the 
1773-1850. notorious Philippe Egahte, who had intrigued during the 
Revolution for the throne occupied by his cousin, Louis XVI, 
had, as a member of the Convention, voted for the latter's 
execution, and had himself later perished miserably on 
the scaffold. In 1789 Louis Philippe was only sixteen 
years of age, too young on the whole to play a political 
role, though he became a member of the Jacobin Club. Later, 
when the war broke out, he joined the army of his country 
and fought valiantly at Valmy and Jemappes. Becoming 
suspected of treason he fled from France in 1793 and entered 
upon a life of exile that was to last twenty-one years. He 
went to Switzerland, where he lived for a while, teaching 
geography and mathematics in a school in Reichenau. Leav- 
ing there when his incognito was discovered he traveled as 
far north as the North Cape, and as far west as the United 
States. He finally settled in England and lived on a pension 
granted by the British Government. Returning to France 
on the fall of Napoleon he was able to recover a large part 
of the family property, which, though confiscated during the 
Revolution, had not been actually sold. During the Restora- 
tion he lived in the famous Palais Royal in the very heart 
of Paris, cultivating relations that might some day prove 
His useful, particularly appealing to the solid, rich bourgeoisie 

liberalism, by ^ display of liberal sentiments and by a good-humored, 
unconventional mode of life. He walked the streets of Paris 
alone, talked, and even drank with workmen with engaging 
bonhomie, and sent his sons to the public schools to associate 

114 



THE CAREER OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 115 

with the sons of the bourgeoisie — a delicate compliment fully 
appreciated by the latter. His palace was the meeting place 
for the liberal, artistic, intellectual society of Paris. Here 
certainly was a prince as nearly republican as a prince could 
be. The rights won by the Revolution would surely not be 
endangered by a man who so easily adapted himself to the 
new ideas that had come into the world with the great up- 
heaval. Frenchmen, who dreaded the idea of a republic, 
discredited by the horrors of the Revolution, and who wished 
to do away with the old-style monarchy, revived by Charles 
X, might naturally be hopeful of combining the advantages 
of both and avoiding the evils of both by placing so amiable 
and enlightened a prince in power. 

Thus the legend grew up, carefully fostered, that here 
was a prince who put patriotism above self-interest, who 
had fought and suffered for his country. It was not known 
then, or in 1830, that he had sought to fight against it 
during Napoleon's reign, nor was it known that under this 
exterior of ostentatious liberalism there lay a strong ambi- 
tion for personal power, a nature essentially autocratic, 
thoroughly imbued with extreme monarchical principles. 
Louis Philippe had learned the arts of intrigue, of self- 
control, of silent, incessant exploitation of circumstances for 
his own advancement. 

Such was the man who in 1830 became king, called upon His legal 

to govern a country in a sea of troubles. His legal title *^*^® *° *^® 

11 11- .1 •■•/> throne, 

to the throne was very weak, ms actual position lor many 

years most precarious. He had been invited to ascend the 
throne simply by the Chamber of Deputies — a chamber, more- 
over, which had been legally dissolved, which, furthermore, 
had never been authorized to choose a king, which was, 
therefore, giving away something it did not possess. More- 
over, of that chamber of 430 members only 252 took part in 
the vote, 219 in favor of Louis Philippe, 33 opposed. The 
Chamber of Peers concurred, but its concurrence merely 
emphasized its nullity in the whole proceeding. The 



lie THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

choice of the new king was never submitted to the people for 
ratification, was never even submitted to the voters, who 
numbered about a hundred thousand. Louis Phihppe was 
virtually the elect of 219 deputies who, in turn, had no legal 
standing. Though the people of France acquiesced in the 
new regime, they never formally sanctioned it. The new 
king, in order to show clearly the break with the past, 
assumed the name Louis Philippe, rather than Philip VII. 
The Con- The Chamber of Deputies, before calling Louis Philippe 

stitution to the throne, drew up a Constitution to which he took oath. 
The Constitution was really a revision of the Charter of 
1814 in those articles which had occasioned trouble during 
the last fifteen years, or which seemed inconsistent with the 
new monarchy. The fatal Article 14 was modified to read, 
*' The king issues the ordinances necessary for the execution 
of the laws but never has power to suspend the laws or 
prevent their execution." Another change was that the 
right of initiating legislation should no longer belong simply 
to the king, but should be enjoyed by both chambers. The 
sessions of the Chamber of Peers were made public like those 
of the Chamber of Deputies. 

Instead of the formula, " the Catholic religion is the re- 
ligion of the state," a phrase that denoted a position of privi- 
lege, a new formula appeared to the effect that that religion 
was " professed by the majority of the French." It was 
explicitly provided that the censorship should never be re- 
established. Article 67 said, " France resumes its colors. 
For the future, no other cockade shall be worn than the 
tricolor cockade." Thus the flag of the Revolution, lustrous 
with victories on a hundred battlefields, replaced the white 
banner of the Bourbons. The preamble of the Charter of 
1814 was suppressed because it sanctioned the theory of 
monarchy by divine right and because in it the king con- 
descended to grant Frenchmen rights as an act of royal 
pleasure, which they considered belonged to them inherently. 
In most other respects the Charter of 1814 remained un- 



CHARACTER OF THE JULY MONARCHY 117 

altered. The age qualification was reduced for deputies 
to thirty years, for voters to twenty-five. It was, however, 
stated in the revision that the electoral system should be 
determined by ordinary law, thus providing for a super- 
session of the existing method.^ 

A law was accordingly passed in 1831 establishing the sys- The fran- 

tem that was destined to remain in force until 1848. The law f ^^^ ^ 

lowered. 

of the double vote was rescinded. The franchise, hitherto 
given only to those paying a direct property tax of 300 
francs, was now extended to those paying one of 200 francs. 
The qualification was reduced to 100 francs in the case of 
certain professional classes, the " capacities," so-called, law- 
yers, physicians, judges, professors. Thus the electorate 
was doubled. But France was still far from democracy. At 
the beginning of the reign the voters numbered about two 
hundred thousand out of a population of about thirty mil- 
lions. France was still governed by the propertied classes, 
by an aristocracy of wealth. Under the July Monarchy the 
bourgeoisie enjoyed a practical monopoly of power. 

There was from the beginning a division of opinion as ^^^ char- 
to the character of the new monarchy. Did Louis Philippe 
rule by divine right, or did he rule by the will of the people, archy. 
expressed by their deputies? The very nature of the July 
Revolution showed that the former claim was untenable. 
That revolution had been made by the people of Paris 
against the monarch who ruled by divine right. Even with 
Charles X out of the way his legitimate successor was not 
Louis Philippe but the little Duke of Bordeaux. But did 
the accession of this prince to the throne prove on the other 
hand that all sovereignty was vested in the people.? Many 
claimed that such was the case, that the people of France 
had virtually elected Louis Philippe king, that they might 
with equal propriety have elected any one else, that having 
elected him they could dismiss him. The opponents of those 

* The constitution is given in full in Anderson, Constitutions and 
Documents, No. 105. 



118 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

who held this view declared that this was to make the July- 
Monarchy virtually a republic, and the fact remained that 
the republic had been deliberately rejected. This party 
argued that the new monarchy was peculiar — ^that the 
basis of the new system was a kind of contract between 
the king and the nation; that neither was absolutely sov- 
ereign, but that each possessed a part of the sovereignty; 
that thus each was indispensable to the other, each incom- 
plete without the other; that France did not recognize with- 
out qualification the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, 
or that of the sovereignty of the monarch; that the fusion 
of the two, inevitable, complete, was the basis of the state; 
that the true theory of the monarchy was that expressed 
in Louis Philippe's phrase that he was " king by the grace 
of God and the will of the nation." 
Insecurity Not only was the legal basis of the July Monarchy un- 
of the new certain, but its practical hold on France was most precarious. 
It was forced to devote the first half of its life to the prob- 
lem of getting solidly established. Improvised at the mo- 
ment of revolution, cleverly set up in the midst of general 
confusion, it was singularly lacking in all the qualities that 
impose upon mankind, that command immediate respect, that 
indicate the possession of authority and power. There was 
nothing majestic about its origin. It had no roots. De- 
vised by the rich bourgeoisie, it seemed the expression of 
purely business considerations. Whether it could captivate 
the sentiments of France, could throw about itself the glamour 
that usually hovers over a throne, remained to be seen. It 
certainly possessed no prestige at the moment of its incep- 
tion. Metternich analyzed the situation with keenness. 
" Louis Philippe finds himself at his accession to the throne 
in an untenable position," wrote the Austrian Chancellor, 
" for the basis upon which his authority rests consists only 
of empty theories. His throne lacks the weight of the 
plebiscite which was behind all the forms of government 
from 1792 to 1801 ; lacks the tremendous support of his- 



PARTIES UNDER LOUIS PHILIPPE 119 

torical right, which was behind the Restoration; lacks the 
popular force of the republic, the military glory of the 
empire, the genius and the arm of Napoleon, the Bourbon 
support of a principle. Its durability will rest solely upon 
accidents." 

Its durability, however, proved greater than had that of A period 
the Napoleonic Empire or of the Restoration. Yet it had first ^^ storm 
to pass through a long period of storm and stress. It had 
enemies without, who denied its very right to exist. And 
even the supporters of the new regime were divided into two 
parties who could not long co-operate, so different were 
their views of the policies that ought to be followed by the 
Government both at home and abroad. There was the 
so-called party of movement or progress, with Laffitte, a The pro- 
rich Parisian banker, and Lafayette, at its head. This S'^^^"''^® 
party did not consider that the revolution was over as soon 
as Louis Philippe sat upon a throne. They wished at 
home to effect many reforms in a democratic sense, not 
with revolutionary haste but gradually ; and abroad, they 
wished to aid those peoples which were revolting against mis- 
rule — as in Belgium, Poland, and Italy. Thus by making 
France more democratic and by supporting democratic 
movements elsewhere, France would resume in the world her 
position of leadership in liberalism, which she had held under 
the Revolution of 1789. 

The other party was called the party of resistance, of The con- 
conservatism. It beheved that the Revolution of 1830 had servative 

pa^rty. 
terminated on August 9th when Louis Philippe accepted the 

revised constitution and became king. It held that the 
Revolution had simply substituted for a king who wished 
to overthrow the parliamentary system established in 1814* 
a king who wished to maintain that system ; that the Revolu- 
tion meant the preservation of existing institutions, did 
not at all mean the expansion of those institutions in a 
democratic direction ; that it was a popular revolution 
designed to prevent a royal revolution. It believed that 



120 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



Popular 
unrest. 



Casimir- 
Perier and 
the policy 
of the con- 
servatives. 



France ought immediately to recover her normal condition, 
that the revolutionary passions which disturb men's minds 
and injure business ought to be quieted at once. Abroad, 
as well as at home, it would pursue a policy of peace. 
Casimir-Perier, Guizot, and the Duke of Broglie were leaders 
of this group. 

Louis Philippe's preferences were decidedly for the latter 
party. Yet he could not at first break openly with the 
former. For some time, therefore, he called members of 
both to the ministry. Such a ministry could not from 
the very nature of the case have a clear, coherent policy. 
Revolutionary passions still ran riot in Paris. Crowds de- 
manded the execution of the ministers of Charles X, who 
had advised the autocratic actions of that monarch. Mobs 
attacked Legitimists in the streets of Paris. These out- 
breaks resulted in business stagnation. The working classes 
suffered. It is said that 150,000 of them left Paris in 
search of employment. Pubhc credit sank rapidly. The 
bonds fell. No one could foresee what would happen either 
at home or abroad. The bourgeoisie felt insecure and rallied 
to the party of resistance. 

Finally March 13, 1831, Casimir-Perier and the party 
of resistance came into power. That party was destined 
to remain in power, with some variations, more or less 
marked, during the rest of the reign of Louis Philippe. Its 
policy truly expressed the essential character of the July 
Monarchy, which fell after eighteen years because it had not 
accomplished the democratic reforms demanded by the party 
of progress. 

Casimir-Perier was a man of great wealth, of imperious 
temper, of positive opinions, of incisive speech. The prin- 
ciples according to which he intended to administer the 
government were boldly and clearly stated in an address 
delivered in the Chamber of Deputies shortly after the for- 
mation of his ministry. His declarations formed virtually 
the programme of the party of resistance. He announced 



THE POLICY OF ORDER 121 

his intention to carry out without weakness and without 
exaggeration the principle of the July Revolution. Now 
that principle was not insurrection; it was resistance to 
executive aggression. " France was exasperated, she was 
defied ; she defended herself, and her victory was the victory 
of law basely outraged. Respect for plighted faith, respect 
for law, that is the principle of the Revolution of July, the 
principle of the government founded by it. For that Revo- 
lution founded a government and did not inaugurate an- 
archy. It did not overthrow the form of society, it affected 
only the political system. It aimed at the establishment 
of a government that should be free but orderly. Thus 
violence must not be, either at home or abroad, the character 
of our government. At home every appeal to force, abroad 
every encouragement of popular insurrection, is a violation 
of its principle. Such is the thought, such the rule of 
our home and foreign policy. Order must be maintained, 
the laws must be executed, authority respected. Public 
security and tranquillity must be revived. The Revolution 
has not begun for France the reign of force. The blood 
of the French belongs to France alone. The first result 
of this Revolution has been to render monarchy more popular 
by reconciling it with liberty." 

Casimir-Perier formulated for foreign affairs the principle Foreign 
of non-intervention, promising not to intervene in favor of Po^^^y* 
peoples in insurrection, but asserting that foreign powers 
had likewise no right to intervene beyond their own frontiers. 
This principle was absolutely opposed to that on which the 
Holy Alliance had been acting. Later Casimir-Perier did 
intervene in Italy and in Belgium in the name of the principle 
of non-intervention. 

This policy of rigorous restoration of order was begun 
at once. Casimir-Perier died in 1832 after a service of 
only fourteen months, but the policy he outlined with such 
clearness and firmness, and put into force, was continued in 
large measure by his successors. 



122 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

Opposition The Government needed whatever strength it could get 

^ ' from a concentration of all its forces for the preservation 

of its existence, for the parties that desired the overthrow 
of the Orleanist Monarchy were active and daring. These 
parties, the Legitimists and the Republicans, it finally suc- 
ceeded in silencing, though not until after much shedding 
of blood. 

The For the Legitimists, those who defended the rights of 

egi imi . (;^]^^j.jgg -^ g^^^ yg descendants, Louis Philippe was a usurper, 

a thief who had treacherously stolen the crown of the Duke 

of Bordeaux, the legitimate king. This party was numer- 

The ically small, but it had in the Duchess of Berry a dauntless 

Duchess of ^jj(j resolute, if imprudent leader. A woman of unusual 
Berry. 

personal charm, attracting people to her and her plans 

despite their better judgment, she now, an exile in England, 
conceived the idea of winning a throne for her son, the 
Duke of Bordeaux. That the accomplishment of this would 
be the very climax of adventure did not sober her romantic, 
passionate nature. She believed that foreign monarchs 
would aid in asserting the principle of legitimacy, which 
lay at the basis of their own power. The magic of Na- 
poleon's return from Elba was fresh in the mind of Europe. 
Might not a beautiful woman, representative of the House 
of Bourbon, succeed where the audacious soldier had suc- 
ceeded.'* The Duchess won the reluctant consent of Charles 
X. She counted for success upon the favorable situation 
of the European powers, upon the supposed strength of 
the Bourbon party in France, upon the co-operation of the 
clergy and the nobility, and upon the support of the Vendee, 
considered the home of chivalric devotion to the white 
flag of the Bourbons. She felt so sure of success that 
she had already prepared a new constitution. She was 
warned in vain by prominent Legitimists of the total lack 
of effective preparations for so desperate an undertaking. 
Crossing the continent from England to Italy, she landed 
in France April 28, 1832, and, concealed in a hut, waited 



INSURRECTIONARY MOVEMENTS 123 

for the promised rising of Marseilles. Even the news that 
this had failed and that the leaders were prisoners did not 
daunt her. She had told the faithful to be ready for her 
in Vendee on the first of May. She must keep the promise. 
Eluding the spies who were upon her heels, after great hard- 
ship, constant danger, and numerous adventures, she suc- 
ceeded in reaching her destination. But the Government knew 
of the plan and the few hundred defenders of the legitimate 
monarchy were put down after a brave resistance. The 
Duchess escaped, reached Nantes after great exertions, and 
eluded the police for several months. She was betrayed by 
a person whom she had employed on several errands, was 
arrested, and was imprisoned until it was thought she was 
dishonored and rendered politically impotent by the birth 
of a daughter and the avowal of a secret marriage. 

At the very time this royalist insurrection was being put 
down in the west, a republican insurrection burst out in 
Paris. Lafayette had won the acquiescence of the Republi- 
cans in the erection of the July Monarchy, but only by 
assuring them that it would be the " best of republics." But 
this did not prove to be the case. By 1832 it seemed clear 
to them that they had been duped, and that the July Mon- 
archy promised no growth in liberty for France. They 
then became its bitter enemies. 

An insurrection broke out in Paris in June 1832 on the Republican 
occasion of the funeral of General Lamarque, a prominent 1^^^^^^°' 
Republican. It was not sanctioned by the prominent men 
of the republican party. The generals, known to be Re- 
publicans, remained inactive. The insurgents, therefore, 
were obscure, and their number was small, yet they fought 
with desperation for two days in the streets of the capital. 
They were defeated because they were unable to gain the 
co-operation of any considerable body of men. The work- 
men of Paris did not rise. The leaders refused to lead. 
Yet an insurrection so ill-timed and so ill-directed occasioned 
considerable loss to the Government. It was important as be- 



124. 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



Vigorous 
measures 
of the Gov- 
ernment. 



ing the first frankly republican insurrection since 1815, and it 
was the strongest opposition the Government of July had 
thus far had to overcome. The Republicans were not 
discouraged by this failure, but went on preparing for the 
future. The Government favored a law aimed at breaking 
up the secret societies which were spreading republican 
principles, by restricting the right of association. Hence- 
forth, any association, whatever might be its nature and 
whatever the number of its members, must submit its con- 
stitution and by-laws to the Government, and might not 
exist without its consent. Hardly had the new law 
been passed than new insurrections burst forth in several 
cities. Particularly important was that in Lyons in April 
1834, which grew out of labor troubles but quickly took on 
a political character. For five days the riot raged in that 
city, finally, after great exertions, being put down by the 
Government. Insurrections also occurred in several other 
cities. 

The Government was successful in suppressing these re- 
publican upheavals. It made no attempt to conciliate the 
discontented. It did not study the labor problem, which 
was one of the causes of the prevalent unrest, but deter- 
mined to crush this annoying faction once for all. Repub- 
licanism must be stamped out. To this end the press must 
be controlled. The revised Charter of 1830 had provided 
for freedom of the press, and had declared the censorship 
abolished forever ; yet the July Monarchy from the very mo- 
ment of its inception had vigorously prosecuted republican 
journals, instinctively recognizing in them its most danger- 
ous enemy. From July 1830 to September 1834 it had in- 
stituted over five hundred trials of journalists alone, had 
imposed heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment upon 
editors. The Tribune, the most aggressive republican sheet, 
had been prosecuted 111 times and had been forced to pay 
157,000 francs in fines. Such prosecutions were more fre- 
quent than ever after the futile insurrections of April 1834. 



ATTACKS UPON LOUIS PHILIPPE 125 

In addition to press prosecutions the Government deter- The prose- 
rained to prosecute some of those who had been arrested in edition of 
the recent riots. It instituted a monster trial of 164 ac- 
cused, not before the jury courts, distrustful of the results 
in that case, but before the Chamber of Peers. Over four 
thousand witnesses were called. The defendants refused to 
recognize the jurisdiction of the Peers or to defend them- 
selves. The case dragged on for months, from March 1835 
to January 1836, creating much bitterness of feeling. Fi- 
nally the accused were condemned to various terms of im- 
prisonment or to deportation. But the decision was not 
enforced. A general amnesty, proclaimed a little later on 
the occasion of the marriage of the King's eldest son, liber- 
ated them. By these vigorous methods, however, the repub- 
lican party was effectually silenced for many years. Its im- 
potence was increased still further by divisions among the 
members themselves. 

Not only were attacks made upon the Government during Attempts 
these stormy years, but attempts upon the life of the King 1^.^°^ ® 
were frequent. These were ascribed to the Republicans xouis 
and served to discredit them still further. They were not the Philippe, 
acts of the party but of isolated individuals. From 1835 
to 1846 six different attempts to assassinate the monarch 
were made and numerous other plots were discovered before 
they could be put into operation. The most horrible of 
these was that of Fieschi in 1835. An infernal machine 
composed of many gun-barrels was discharged by a Corsican, 
Fieschi, at the King as he was passing with his three sons 
and many members of the court and army through the 
streets of Paris, July 28, 1835. Eighteen persons were 
killed on the spot, many more were injured. The King and 
his sons escaped as by a miracle. 

The Government, encouraged by the widespread execration The Sep- 
of this fiendish crime, determined to strike hard at all op- timber 
ponents. It secured the passage in September 1835 of 
new laws concerning the assize courts, the jury system, 



126 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

and the press. The Minister of Justice was empowered to 
establish as many of these assize or special courts as might 
be necessary to judge summarily all those attacking the 
security of the state. The accused might be judged even 
though absent. In jury trials the decision might hence- 
forth be given by a mere majority, seven, instead of the two- 
thirds vote, eight, previously required. The third and most 
The press important law concerned the press. It was designed to pro- 
law, tect the king, the constitution, and the fundamental prin- 
ciples of society from attack. Heavy fines, as high as 
50,000 francs, were imposed for various offenses — for a 
summons to insurrection, even if the insurrection should not 
occur; for attacks upon the King, even allusions to his per- 
son, or caricatures; for publication of jury lists; for the 
collection of subscriptions to aid newspapers to pay their 
fines. The law went even further and forbade Frenchmen 
under heavy fines the right to defend other forms of govern- 
ment than the existing one, to declare themselves adherents 
of any fallen royal house ; to question the principle of 
private property. The censorship was re-established for 
drawings, caricatures, and plays. The preliminary deposit 
required of papers was raised to 100,000 francs. 

These September laws gave great offense to all liberal 
and moderate men. After five years of freedom of the 
press to return to so far-reaching a suppression of that 
freedom seemed unjustifiable. The most careful defense 
of the King and the constitution was certainly desirable, 
but did it require any such drastic measures at this time? 
Would not the very multiplicity of crimes tend to encourage 
crime ? 

These laws greatly weakened the July Monarchy. Men 
felt that individual liberty was only an empty word. The 
press law was aimed particularly at the Legitimists and 
the Republicans. The papers of the former party, well 
supplied with capital, survived the persecution to which 
they were now subjected. The republican organs, lacking 



THE REVIVAL OF BONAPARTISM 127 

this resource, largely disappeared. The press in France 
was in as deplorable a condition as in the worst days of the 
Restoration. 

The Government might now feel secure against the at- The Bona- 
tempts of the Legitimists and the Republicans. The only P^rtists. 
other party that was an inevitable opponent of the July 
Monarchy was the Bonapartist. But of this Louis Philippe 
entertained no fear. Indeed, with what proved to be singu- 
lar fatuity, he distinctly promoted by his actions the growth 
of a sentiment that in the end was to prove very costly both 
to himself and to France. VV^ith the evident intention of 
showing that the July Monarchy, unlike that of the Restora- 
tion, was truly national, that it had no desire to eliminate 
all reminders of the Napoleonic era, but rather regarded 
them as among the priceless glories of France, he completed 
the Arc de Triomphe, begun by Napoleon, named streets 
and bridges after Napoleon's battles, and caused the Na- ^^^^^ 
poleonic history to be portrayed on the walls of the palace at ^^ ^^^ 
Versailles, side by side with that of Louis XIV. Literature Napoleonic 
was already busy creating the Napoleonic legend, which, ig- iegend. 
noring the evils and the frightful cost to France of the great 
Emperor's rule, was immortalizing his achievements and 
mourning his tragic end. It was singular policy, indeed, 
for a descendant of Capetian kings to foster the reviving 
interest in the career of the illustrious founder of a rival 
family. But that no danger lay that way seemed to be 
proved by two attempts on the part of the heir to the 
Napoleonic throne to overthrow the July Monarchy, which 
was showing itself so complaisant to the Napoleonic senti- 
ment, attempts which resulted in ridiculous failures. 

Napoleon I had died in 1821, and his son, the King of Louis 

Rome, known after 1818 as the Duke of Reichstadt, had ^*^° ^°^ 
/ . . Bonaparte, 

died in 1832. The headship of the family thus passed to i808-1873. 
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the son of Louis Napoleon, for- 
merly King of Holland, and of Hortense Beauharnais, 
daughter of the Empress Josephine. Napoleon had indicated 



128 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

that the succession should be in this Hne in case he should 
leave no direct descendant. Prince Louis, born in the Tuile- 
ries in 1808, had been educated in Germany, and had gone to 
Italy, where, in 1831, he had participated on the popular side 
in the revolutionary movements described above. He was now 
living in Switzerland, brooding over his fortune, taking seri- 
ously his role of pretender, publishing his political views. 
Suddenly he appeared before the garrison of the fortress of 
Strassburg in 1836, wearing the familiar Napoleonic coat 
and hoping to win the support of the soldiers by the very 
magic of his name. Thus having a lever he could perhaps 
topple Louis Philippe from his throne. He failed miserably, 
and was brought to Paris a prisoner. The Government, 
thinking it wise to treat this episode as a childish folly, did 
not prosecute him but allowed him to sail to the United States. 
But Louis returned next year to Switzerland. He removed 
to England upon the threat of Louis Philippe, taking part 
there in fashionable or semi-fashionable life, elaborating his 
political theories and planning for his political future. His 
undertaking had failed but he had at least announced 
himself to France as the heir of the Great Napoleon. 
He believed firmly in his star and felt that he would 
some day be called to finish the interrupted work of his 
uncle. 
The second The Government of Louis Philippe proceeded to inject 
still further vitality into the growing Napoleonic legend. It 
secured the consent of the English Goverment to the removal 
of the remains of Napoleon from St. Helena to Paris, where 
they might repose according to the wish which the Emperor 
had himself expressed in his last testament, on the banks 
of the Seine, " in the midst of the French people whom I 
have loved so well," and in December 1840 they were de- 
posited beneath the dome of the Invalides with elaborate 
funeral pomp and amidst evidences of extraordinary popular 
excitement. A minister of Louis Philippe said in the Cham- 
ber of Deputies, " He was Emperor and King, the legitimate 



funeral of 
Napoleon I. 



THE BOULOGNE FIASCO 129 

sovereign of this land; as such he might rest in St. Denis. 

But he is entitled to more than the usual burial place of 

kings." The question put by Lamartine was pertinent. 

What was the Government thinking of " to allow the French 

heart and imagination to be so fired? " 

Meanwhile, Louis Bonaparte, pretender to the throne, had The 

resolved to take advantas-e of this renewed interest in Na- „ °^ °^^® 

'^ fiasco, 

poleon. Declaring that the ashes of the Emperor ought 

to rest only in an Imperial France, he made another attempt 
to overturn the Government of Louis Philippe. On August 
6, 1840, he landed with about sixty companions near Bou- 
logne, hoping to win over the garrison of that town and 
then to enact another " return from Elba," an event whose 
fascination for adventurers was lively, but an achievement 
difficult to repeat. He brought with him proclamations 
declaring the House of Orleans dethroned. The failure of 
this attempt was more humiliating than that of Strassburg, 
four years earlier. The little group was scattered by the 
appearance of troops. They fled toward the beach, where 
most of them surrendered. But a few, among them the 
Prince, plunged into the water in order to get to a boat 
nearby, which capsized as they were attempting to scramble 
into it. They were seized by the authorities. But the 
Prince, brought before the Chamber of Peers for trial, had 
a chance to make a speech. " For the first time in my 
life," he said, " I am at last able to make my voice heard 
in France and to speak freely to Frenchmen. . . . The 
cruel and undeserved proscription which for twenty-five years 
has dragged my life from the steps of a throne to the 
prison which I have just left has not been able to impair 
the courage of my heart. ... I represent before you a 
principle, a cause, a defeat. The principle is the sovereignty 
of the people: the cause is that of the Empire: the defeat 
is Waterloo." His eloquence, however, was unavailing. He 
was condemned to imprisonment for life in the fortress of 
Ham. He escaped, however, six years later disguised as 



130 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



Ministerial 
instability. 



Rivalry of 
Thiers and 
Guizot. 



loTiis 
Philippe 
intends to 
rule. 



a mason. Two years after that he was the most important 
figure in France. 

The parliamentary history of France during the ten years 
from 1830 to 1840 was marked by instability. There were 
ten ministries within ten years. Yet there was a fairly con- 
tinuous policy. Ministries might disappear and new ones 
come on the scene, but all after the fall of Laffitte, 1831, 
were composed of men of the party of resistance, such as 
Casimir-Perier, Broglie, Thiers, and Guizot. The chief work 
was to consolidate the July Monarchy, to put down its ene- 
mies, and to keep the peace with foreign countries. When, 
however, the members of this party had finally triumphed 
over their adversaries, they divided against each other. The 
personal rivalry of two men, Thiers and Guizot, was largely 
the cause of this. Each desired the leading place in the 
Government. Out of this rivalry arose two parties, one called 
the Left Center, with Thiers as leader, the other called the 
Right Center, under Guizot. The division, however, was 
not based simply upon the personal ambitions of the two 
men. Each had its theory of the constitution. Thiers 
held that the king reigns but does not govern ; in other 
words, the king must always choose his ministers from the 
party that is in the majority in the Chamber and must 
then let them govern without intervening personally in 
affairs. Guizot, on the other hand, held that the king 
should have the greatest consideration for the opinions of 
the majority but that he was not bound strictly to follow 
that majority. " The throne," he said, " is not an empty 
chair." 

Louis Philippe had no desire to be simply an ornamental 
head of the state, as he was according to Thiers' view. He 
desired to be the real ruler, to govern as well as to reign. 
He insisted upon conducting foreign affairs himself, and he 
endeavored to exercise a controlling influence in other ways 
through his ministers. But for several years after his 
accession to the throne he was careful to guard himself from 



LOUIS PHILIPPE AND THIERS 131 

all appearance of assuming personal power. But now that 
his enemies were overthrown and crushed, now that these 
street insurrections were stamped out, he began to reveal 
his real purpose more clearly, which was to be ruler in fact 
as well as in theory. Taking advantage of the party divi- 
sions just alluded to he forced Thiers, the chief minister 
and a man too independent to be a mere spokesman of the 
King, to resign in 1836, and called to the ministry Mole, 
a man who, as he correctly supposed, would, because of his 
political convictions, be very willing to be the representative 
of the King's personal views. Men began at once to talk 
of " personal government," of the interference of the mon- Personal 
arch in the realm that properly, they held, belonged to S^'^^^^' 
parliament. References to Charles X became frequent. A 
vigorous opposition to this " court policy " and " court min- 
istry " finally brought about its fall in 1839. Thereupon 
Soult became chief minister, but was looked upon as as much 
the representative of the King as Mole had been. His brief 
ministry was notable for a direct rebuff administered through 
him to the monarch. Louis Philippe asked for an appro- 
priation for his son, the Duke of Nemours. The Chamber 
rejected the request by a vote of 226 to 220. The Soult 
ministry then retired and at last the King, appearing to 
renounce his personal ambition, called Thiers to the ministry. 

The chief feature of the short Thiers ministry was its Thiers and 

treatment of the Eastern Question, which in a new phase ^ ® astern 

. ^ , Question, 

had been for several years before Europe agam. The exist- 
ence of the Turkish Empire was once more threatened, this 
time by a powerful vassal of the Sultan. After the Greek 
war of independence, in which the viceroy of Egypt, Me- 
hemet Ali, had greatly aided the Sultan, the former was dis- 
satisfied with his reward. He began to extend his possessions 
by arms. He conquered all of Syria (1832). He pushed for- 
ward into Asia Minor, defeating the Turkish generals sent 
against him. He prepared to go still further, to Constanti- 
nople. At once the European powers began to take sides. 



13a 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



Resigna- 
tion of 
Thiers. 



Russia offered her aid and succeeded in making a treaty with 
the frightened Sultan, the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, 1833, 
whereby, for certain obhgations she was to assume, she 
acquired an almost complete control of the Turkish govern- 
ment. England, hostile as ever to Russian influence in 
Turkey and also wishing to maintain her own commercial 
prestige in the East, came to the aid of Turkey, Russia 
and England, therefore, declared their intention of maintain- 
ing the integrity of the Sultan's dominions, though their mo- 
tives were contradictory. Prussia and Austria took the same 
side, asserting that the rights of legitimate monarchs must 
be maintained. On the other hand, France supported Me- 
hemet Ali. The French had been attracted toward Egypt 
ever since Napoleon's expedition. The Egyptian army was 
organized and drilled by Frenchmen. France had just 
conquered Algiers. A close connection between Mehemet 
Ali and France would probably offer considerable commer- 
cial and political advantage in the Mediterranean. Thus 
France became the patron of Mehemet. But she stood 
alone. Her isolation was shown to all the world when the 
powers met in conference in London in 1840 and, ignoring 
her, because they knew that she was hostile, made a treaty 
with Turkey, pledging themselves to force Mehemet Ali to 
terms. The publication of this treaty aroused a warlike feel- 
ing in France, as it seemed to exclude her from the concert of 
powers, as in 1815. Thiers urged the adoption of warlike 
measures, but the King vigorously opposed such proposals, 
which would involve France and the July Monarchy in the 
greatest danger. Thiers resigned and Guizot now became 
chief minister. France adopted a policy of peace and the 
danger of a war passed. Thus the King rather than the 
ministry had determined the policy of the Government. In- 
cidentally, Louis Philippe found himself relieved of the min- 
ister who believed that the king should reign but should 
not govern, and he gained in Guizot, who now became the 
leading minister and who remained in power until 1848, 



THE GUIZOT MINISTRY 133 

an instrument through which he was enabled to carry out 
with great skill his personal policy during the remainder 
of his reign. 

With the elevation of Guizot to the leading position in Guizot, 
the Government, France attained ministerial stability. The 1787-1874. 
administration of which he was the head remained in power 
from 1840 to 1848. Guizot was now fifty-three years of 
age. He had been a Liberal at the time of the Empire and 
the Restoration. Eminent as a professor, an historian, and 
an orator, he was a man of strong and rigid mind, holding 
certain political principles with the tenacity of a mathema- 
tician. In a world of change he remained immutable. He Guizot's 

refused to recognize that France needed any alteration ^V ^.'^^ 

..... . . principles. 

in her political institutions. He believed in the Charter of 

1814 as revised in 1830. Any further reform was un- 
necessary and would be dangerous. To preserve order 
within and peace without, that the wealth of France might 
increase, was his programme. His policy was, as he said 
in his opening speech in the Chamber, the " maintenance 
of peace everywhere and always." 

These were also the views of Louis Philippe. The King 
could in no sense use Guizot as a pliant tool. Guizot 
was a man of far too great independence of thought, of 
far too vigorous and original character, to be the tool of 
any man. But this harmony of opinions was so complete 
that the King could complacently watch his minister carry 
out the royal programme, and Louis Philippe was always 
far more concerned with the reality than with the appear- 
ance of power. 

Moreover, the Government was scrupulous in its adherence The Govern- 
to parliamentary forms, in which Guizot was a strict be- "^®^* sctu- 

. . , . . pulously 

liever. This ministry always had a majority in the Cham- parlia- 

ber of Deputies. That majority, indeed, increased at each mentary. 
election. There was no attempt to defy the Chamber and 
exalt the royal prerogative. The King could not be accused 
of aspiring to play a personal role as in the days of Mole, 



1345 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



How the 
Govern- 
ment ob- 
tained its 
majorities. 



The ma- 
nipulation 
of the 
voters. 



for the ministry directed the Government and the ministry 
constantly had a majority of the Deputies to approve its ac- 
tions. What France witnessed was a policy of stiff con- 
servatism, or immobility, constantly supported by the 
Chamber. 

The attention of the country consequently became riveted 
on that majority. How was it obtained? It was clear 
that it did not represent public opinion, did not at all 
express the convictions of France as a whole. It became 
evident on examination that that majority, the never failing 
support of the ministry, was obtained by an elaborate system 
of corruption. Louis Philippe and Guizot took no account 
of public opinion. They fixed their attention solely upon 
what was called the pays legal, that is, upon the body which 
possessed political rights under the constitution, namely, the 
voters and the deputies whom the voters chose. Now the 
number of voters was about 200,000, the number of deputies 
430. Bodies so small could be manipulated and the manip- 
ulation was the supreme task of Guizot, the very founda- 
tion of his system. It was accomplished without difficulty. 
France was a highly centralized state, with local govern- 
ment largely controlled by the central power. Consequently, 
the ministry had at its disposal an immense number of 
offices and it could do numberless favors to individuals and 
to communities. The electoral colleges, which chose the 
deputies, were small bodies frequently consisting of not 
more than two hundred members, many of whom were office- 
holders. The office-holders did as they were told by the 
Government, and other members were bribed in various 
ways by appeals to their self-interest. If they elected the 
candidate desired by the minister they might be rewarded 
by seeing a railway built in their district, for this was the 
period of railway building; or they might obtain tobacco 
licenses or university scholarships or petty offices for their 
friends. Many were the attractions held out to the self- 
interest of the voters, the pays legal. This was plainly 



THE DEMAND FOR REFORM 135 

corruption of the electorate, but it worked well in the opinion 

of the ministry. It insured the election to the Chamber 

of a large number of deputies pleasing to the ministry. 

Within the Chamber the same methods were used. About 

two hundred deputies, nearly half the assembly, were at The ma- 

the same time office-holders. The Government controlled ^^^^, ^ ^°^ 

of the 

them, as all promotions or increases of salary were dependent deputies, 
upon its favor. The ministry only needed to gain a few 
more votes to have a majority, and this was easily accom- 
plished by a tactful distribution of its favors among those 
who had an eye to the main chance. There were plums 
enough for the purpose, offices to be bestowed, railroad 
franchises to be granted, lucrative contracts for government 
supplies to be awarded. "What is the Chamber?" said a 
deputy in 1841. " A great bazaar, where every one barters 
his conscience, or what passes for his conscience, in exchange 
for a place or an office." 

Such a system was a mockery. The forms of the con- The 
stitution were observed but its spirit was nullified. Self- servility of 
interest was exalted above the interests of the nation. The 
ministry commanded a servile parliament. It is one of the 
ironies of history that Guizot, a man of most scrupulous 
honesty in private life, should have been the master mecha- 
nician of so corrupt and demoralizing a political machine. 

Opposition to this system was, of course, inevitable, and 
is the main feature of the domestic politics of France from 
1841 to 1848, when Louis Philippe and Guizot and the 
entire regime were violently overthrown. Reformers de- 
manded that there be a change in the composition of the 
Chamber of Deputies and in the manner of electing it, par- 
liamentary reform and electoral reform. Electoral reform Demand for 
should be effected by increasing the body of voters, by ^ ^° °^^ 
lowering the property qualification, and by adding certain namentary 
classes which could safely be intrusted with the suffrage, reform, 
even if they could not meet the property qualification. Thus 
with an increased body of voters corruption would be more 



136 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



minirtry. 



difficult. The ministry absolutely refused to consider this 
proposition. According to Guizot there were voters enough ; 
moreover, the number was increasing with the increase of 
wealth. He even rejected a proposition that would have 
added only fifteen thousand voters to the existing electorate. 
Rigid oppo- It was demanded that the reform of the Chamber itself 

SI ion should be effected by forbidding deputies to hold office. 

the Guizot . ,.,,.. . liT 

Agamst this also the mmistry set itself. Both plans, there- 
fore, were rejected and the policy of immobility complacently 
continued. Year after year the two demands were brought 
forward in the Chamber ; year after year they were voted 
down by the pliant majority. Reformers appeared to be 
hopelessly checkmated by the smooth operation of the machine 
they were denouncing. Well might Lamartine exclaim to 
Guizot, " According to you, the genius of the politician 
consists of only one thing — placing yourself in a position 
created by chance or by a revolution, and there remaining 
immobile, inert, implacable to all improvement. If in truth 
that were all the merit of a statesman directing a govern- 
ment, there would be no more need of statesmen: a post 
would do as well." This inertia ultimately disgusted some 
of the conservatives themselves. One of the members who 
had hitherto followed the ministry, summing up its work in 
1847, said, " What have they done for the past seven years? 
nothing, nothing, nothing." " France is bored," said La- 
martine. 

Yet this July Monarchy with its negative policy of resist- 
ance in season and out of season, resistance to lawlessness 
in the streets, to attacks of Legitimists and Republicans, 
to demands for an active foreign policy favorable to liberty, 
to demands for constitutional reform at home, was living 
in a world fermenting with ideas, apparently oblivious of 
the fact. Not only did its policy alienate many former! 
supporters by its rigid and peremptory refusal of all con-! 
cessions, and augment and sharpen more and more the an-i 
tagonism of the Republicans, but its complete indifference! 



Rise of 
radicalism. 



ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 137 

to a new set of demands in the economic sphere, demands 
for social reform, was creating bitter enmities in another 
quarter and preparing a troublous future. There was 
growing up in France a party more radical than the re- 
publican, a party that looked forward not only to a change 
in the political form of the government but to a sweeping 
alteration in the form of society, in the relation of the great 
mass of the population who were wage-earners to the privi- 
leged few, the capitalists and employers. The July Mon- 
archy was a government of the bourgeoisie, of the well-to-do, 
of the capitalists. They alone possessed the suffrage. Con- 
sequently, the remainder of the population was in a political 
sense of no importance. The legislation enacted during 
these eighteen years was class legislation, which favored 
the bourgeoisie and which made no attempt to meet the 
needs of the masses. Yet the distress of the masses was wide- Economic 
spread and deep and should have appeared clear and ominous ^^ ^^^^' 
to the Government. Under the Restoration, but chiefly 
under Louis Philippe, France was passing from the old in- 
dustrial system of small domestic manufacture to the new 
factory system, the application of machinery to industry on Introduc- 

a large scale, the employment of the new motive force, steam. ^^^ ^ 
, . . . . ..,.;. factory 

This transition was in every country painful, involving as system. 

it did a dislocation and clumsy maladjustment of forces, 
and giving rise to most vexatious labor questions. Capi- 
talists who could give or withhold the chance of employ- 
ment had the upper hand and knew it. Grossly excessive 
hours of labor were required, and women and children who 
could tend machines were sacrificed to the new system in 
a manner that had never been possible under the old. The 
strange new conditions, the manifest evils dangerous to 
mind and body, required new laws for the protection of 
the weaker class. But legislation lagged far behind. Em- Condition 

plovers were intent on exploiting their factories, their ma- ° , .^ 
. , r- o ' working 

chines, their workmen to the fullest possible extent, and classes, 
many were amassing large fortunes. They were not in- 



138 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

terested in lessening the misery which the new order pro- 
visionally caused. And the law of France forbade the 
workmen themselves to combine for purposes of improving 
their condition. Ignorant, poor, lacking leadership, with- 
out political power, smarting under a sense of oppression 
and injustice, they were the inevitable enemies of a regime 
that passed them by, giving them no heed. In 1831 the 
silk-weavers of Lyons, earning the pitiful wage of eighteen 
sous a day for a day of eighteen hours, had risen in in- 
surrection under the despairing banner, " We will live by 
working or die fighting." 
Growth of Such conditions provoked discussion and many writers 
socialism, began to preach new doctrines concerning the organization 
of industry and the crucial question of the relations of 
capital and labor, doctrines henceforth called socialistic, and 
appealing with increasing force to the millions of laborers 
who believed that society weighed with unjustifiable severity 
upon them, that their labor did not by any means receive 
its proportionate reward. St. Simon was the first to an- 
nounce a socialistic scheme for the reorganization of society 
in the interest of the most numerous class. He believed 
that the state should own the means of production and should 
organize industry on the principle of " Labor according to 
capacity and reward according to services." St. Simon 
was a speculative thinker, not a practical man of affairs. 
His doctrine gained in direct importance when it was adopted 
by a man who was a politician, able to recruit and lead 
a party, and to make a programme definite enough to appeal 
Louis Blanc, to the masses. Such a man was Louis Blanc, who was 
destined to play a great part in the overthrow of the July 
Monarchy and in the Republic that succeeded. In his 
writings he tried to convince the laborers of France of the 
evils of the prevailing economic conditions, a task which 
was not difficult. He denounced in vehement terms the 
government of the bourgeoisie as government of the rich, 
by the rich, and for the rich. It must be swept away and 



THE RISE OF SOCIALISM 139 

the state must be organized on a thoroughly democratic 
basis. This was the condition precedent to all success. 
Only then and with the full power of the state at their 
disposal could the laboring classes work out their own sal- 
vation. The state, organized as a democratic republic, 
should then create so-called national or social workshops, 
advancing the necessary capital. These would be con- 
trolled by the workers who would share the proceeds. They 
would gradually supersede the existing workshops or fac- 
tories, controlled and directed by the private individuals 
who had supplied the capital and who appropriated the 
profits. Private competition would give way to co-operative 
production. The individual producers would disappear. 
Lx)uis Blanc's theories, propounded in a style at once clear 
and vivid, were largely adopted by workingmen. A social- 
ist party was thus created. This party threatened the 
existence of the monarchy ; it also threatened the industrial 
and commercial system in vogue. It believed in a republic 
as the only government that the democracy could hope to 
control; but it differed from the other republicans in that, 
while they desired simply a change in the form of govern- 
ment, it desired a far more sweeping change in society. As 
early as 1842 a German named Stein wrote: " The time for 
purely political movements in France is past; the next 
revolution must inevitably be a social revolution." 'i„' 

Thus it is evident that the amount of discontent with the Widespread 
Government of France was great and growing. From nearly opposition 
every quarter enemies arose. These enemies differed from -j^jj^^ ^f 
each other — they might not be able to co-operate in con- the Govern- 
structive work, but they could co-operate in destroying the ment. 
existing system. There were the moderate Orleanists, con- 
vinced friends of monarchy, who were repelled by the prev- 
alent corruption of Parliament and wished to end it; there 
were the convinced Republicans, silenced but not suppressed; 
there were the Socialists, democratic, republican. The vol- 
ume of discontent was increased by the unpopular character 



140 THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

of the foreign policy of the ministry, which appeared hu- 
miliatingly submissive to England on certain occasions, too 
desirous of pleasing the absolute and reactionary monarchs 
of central Europe on others, too cold towards Liberals every- 
where, too pettily personal, also, in that one of its aims was 
the advancement of the dynastic ambitions of Louis Philippe, 
who sought to promote by marriage alliances the fortunes of 
his family, even at the expense of the interests of the nation 
which he ruled. 
Fusion of These various groups, exceedingly dissatisfied with the 

the oppos- existing order, converged in 1848, though unintentionally 
and unsympathetically, toward the most violent and reck- 
less upheaval France had known since 1789 — a movement 
initiated by the moderate Monarchists, rapidly furthered 
by the Republicans, and in the end partly dominated by the 
Socialists. Each of these parties was by conviction and 
by temperament violently opposed to the other. The im- 
mediate occasion for their co-operation was furnished by 
the continued demand for electoral and parliamentary re- 
form. 

The electoral and parliamentary corruption of the July 
Monarchy has been described. Year after year the ministry 
had proved itself stronger and had defiantly resisted all 
proposals. The King was fatuously opposed to reform 
in itself. Guizot, believing in growth, nevertheless held 
that the time had not yet come for any alteration in the 
prevailing system. Beating against this wall, which seemed 
to grow higher and more solid each year, the Opposi- 
tion came to see that there was no hope of overthrow- 
ing the obstructionist ministry by ordinary parliamentary 
methods. 
The Guizot constantly asserted that the demand for reform 

was simply brought forward for political purposes, that 
it was the work of a few, that the people as a whole were 
entirely indifferent. To prove the falsity of this assertion 
the Opposition instituted in 1847 a series of " reform ban- 



reform 
banquets." 



THE REFORM BANQUETS 141 

quets," which were to be attended by the people and addressed 
by the reformers. Petitions for reform were to be circu- 
lated on these occasions. Thus popular pressure would be 
brought to bear on Parliament and King. These banquets 
were instituted by those loyal to the monarchy, but hostile 
to its policy. They simply wished to change the latter. 
Similar meetings, however, were instituted by the Republic- 
ans, who were opposed to the very existence of the monarchy. 
On the 18th of July, 1847, Lamartine, now rapidly ad- Emergence 
vancing as a leader of the latter party, prophesied a coming 
revolution. " If the monarchy," said he, " is unfaithful to 
the hopes that the wisdom of the country reposed in 1830, 
less in its nature than in its name, if it surrounds itself with 
an electoral aristocracy rather than unites the entire nation, 
if it allows us to descend into the abyss of corruption, rest 
assured that the monarchy will fall, not in its own blood 
as did that of 1789, but in the trap it itself has set. And 
after having experienced revolutions of liberty and counter- 
revolutions of glory, you will have a revolution of the public 
conscience and a revolution of contempt." 

Great enthusiasm was aroused by these informal plebi- The people 

scites all over the country during the summer and fall of support the 

, 1 demand for 

1847. It was conclusively shown that the people were reform. 

behind this demand for reform. But the monarchy remained 
unaffected — still gave its systematic refusal. The King 
denounced in his speech from the throne this agitation " fo- 
mented by hostile or blind passions." He denied the legal 
right of the people to hold such meetings. To test this 
right before the courts of law the Opposition arranged a 
great banquet for February 22, 1848, in Paris. Eighty- 
seven prominent deputies promised to attend. All were to 
meet in front of the church of the Madeleine and march 
to the banquet hall. In the night of February 21-22 the 
Government posted orders forbidding this procession and 
all similar meetings. Rather than force the issue the depu- 
ties who had agreed to attend yielded, though under pro- 



142 



THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 



test. But a vast crowd congregated, of students, working- 
men, and others. They had no leader, no definite purpose. 
The crowd committed shght acts of lawlessness, but nothing 
serious happened that day. But in the night barricades 
arose in the workingmen's quarters of the city. Some shots 
were fired. The Government called out the National Guard. 
It refused to march against the insurgents. Some of its 
members even began to shout, " Long live Reform ! " " Down 
with Guizot ! " The King, frightened at this alarming as- 
Resignation pect, was willing to grant reform. Guizot would not con- 
of Guizot. senf; g^^id consequently withdrew from office. This news 
was greeted with enthusiasm by the crowds and, in the 
evening of February 23d, Paris was illuminated and the 
trouble seemed ended. The contest thus far had been simply 
between Royalists, those who supported the Guizot ministry, 
and the reformers, and the fall of Guizot was the triumph 
of the latter. But the movement no longer remained thus 
circumscribed. The RepubHcans now entered aggressively 
upon the scene, resolved to arouse the excited people against 
Louis Philippe himself and against the monarchy. They 
marched through the boulevards and made a hostile demon- 
stration before Guizot's residence. Some unknown person 
fired a shot at the guards. The guards instantly replied, 
fifty persons fell, more than twenty dead. This was the 
doom of the monarchy. The Republicans seized the occa- 
sion to inflame the people further. Several of the corpses 
were put upon a cart which was lighted by a torch. The 
cart was then drawn through the streets. The ghastly 
spectacle aroused everywhere the angriest passions ; cries 
of " Vengeance ! " followed it along its course. From the 
towers the tocsin sounded its wild and sinister appeal. 

Thus began a riot which grew in vehemence hourly, and 
which swept all before it. The cries of " Long live Reform ! " 
heard the day before, now gave way to the more ominous 
cries of " Long live the Republic ! " Finally, on February 
24th, the King abdicated in favor of his grandson, the 



The over 
throw of 
Louis 
Philippe. 



THE FALL OF THE JULY MONARCHY 143 

little Count of Paris, who should be King Louis Philippe II, 
and whose mother, the Duchess of Orleans, should be regent. 
The royal family left the Tuileries and escaped from Paris 
in safety. Another French king took the road to England 
and entered upon a life of exile, which was to end only with 
death in 1850. 

The Government of France had been swallowed up by 
another revolution. The King and the minister were over- 
thrown. Who would succeed them? The King had abdi- 
cated in favor of his grandson. But would the revolution- 
ists recognize him.'^ The Duchess of Orleans with great 
bravery went directly to the Chamber of Deputies with her 
two sons, nine and seven years old. A painful scene fol- 
lowed. The majority of the deputies hailed her as regent 
and her son as king, but soon the mob, consisting of the 
students, the Republicans, and Socialists who had forced 
the abdication, invaded the Chamber. The president de- 
clared the session closed. The mob continued in the hall, 
re-enforced by new armed bands, which denounced the idea 
of a regency, denounced the Chamber and the deputies, and 
cried " No more Bourbons ; a Provisional Government and 
after that the Republic." Out of this wild turmoil by no 
legal method arose a new system. The republican deputies The rise of 
finally declared the House of Orleans deposed and proclaimed ^ ^^.°^ 
a Provisional Government and Lamartine read a list of seven 
names of those who should compose it. All were deputies. 
This list had been previously drawn up at the office of the 
National, the leading liberal newspaper. The crowd in 
the hall shouted their approval. This assembly did not 
proclaim the Republic. 

While this government was arising in the Chamber, an- 
other movement was in progress, in another part of the city. 
The republican Socialists, meeting in the office of the Reform, 
their organ, had drawn up a list which had included the 
names on the list of the National, but had added to them 
three of their own number, among whom was Louis Blanc. 



144. THE REIGN OF LOUIS PHILIPPE 

These established themselves in the Hotel de Ville and pro- 
claimed the Republic. Thus there were two governments 
as a result of the insurrection. The members chosen in the 
Chamber traversed the streets of Paris to the Hotel de Ville. 
There the two groups were fused. Positions were found 
in the new government for the members of both. The Repub- 
lic was immediately proclaimed, subject to ratification by the 
people. 



CHAPTER VII 

CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN TWO 
REVOLUTIONS 

PRUSSIA 

The French Revolution of 1848 was the signal for the The Febru- 

most wide-reachinff disturbance of the century. Revolu- ^^^ Revo- 

. , lution a 

tions broke out from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, from signal for 

France to the Russian frontier. The whole system of re- other revo- 
action, which had succeeded Waterloo and which had come to liitio^s. 
be personified in the imperturbable Mettemich, crashed in 
unutterable confusion. But in order to understand the 
swiftness amd completeness of this collapse, one must know 
something of the evolution of central Europe between 1830 
and 1848, for the revolutions of 1848 were no sudden and 
accidental improvisations, but were simply the decisive and 
dramatic culmination of movements everywhere making for 
change. The Revolution of 1848 was a signal and an 
encouragement to other peoples to attempt similar things ; 
it was not a cause. Particularly necessary is it to trace 
the inner evolution of Germany, Austria, and Italy during 
this period, which was not at all one of stagnation, but 
one characterized by a great and fruitful fermentation of 
ideas. 

The interest of German history between 1830 and 1848 The general 
does not lie in the evolution of political liberty, for political ^.^^^^ ^^ 
repression and absolutism were the order of the day. It period. 
lies rather in growth along economic lines, in intellectual 
achievements outside the domain of politics, and in those 
movements of opinion and of racial aspiration which ren- 
dered so notable and far-reaching the vast turmoil of 1848. 

145 



146 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 



Evolution 

of 

Prussia. 



Great in- 
tellectual 
activity. 



For German history the all-important matter is the evolu- 
tion during those years of a remarkable situation in both 
Prussia and Austria, which was highly favorable to revolu- 
tions in the fulness of time. The Confederation as a whole 
had no evolution, but was a sleeping, hollow mockery. The 
evolution of the lesser states, important no doubt, must be 
neglected in a study of this scope. The ideas, personahties, 
tendencies, and situations that were to prove determinant for 
central Europe, came not from them but from the two first- 
class powers already named, which stood confronting each 
other in the Confederation and in Europe as a whole, ren- 
dering unity impossible, and both opposed to liberty. 

And first of the evolution of Prussia during these years. 
Political liberty, as we have seen, was denied. No constitu- 
tion was granted, no parliament created, but it would not 
be reasonable to emphasize that fact unduly. Their absence 
was not acutely felt save by a small enlightened minority. 
Such liberties Prussians had never known, and there were 
few serious practical grievances. The state was well ad- 
ministered. The king, Frederick Wilham III (1797-1840), 
was honest and beloved, the administration hard-working 
and economical, the policies enlightened. The period be- 
tween 1815 and 1848, though politically unimportant, was 
immensely significant in other ways. While university pro- 
fessors and students suspected of dabbling in politics were 
shamefully persecuted, the regime was not opposed to in- 
tellectual progress. Under it great advances were made 
in all branches of education from the lowest to the highest. 
Intellectual activity, forbidden to enter the pohtical field, 
overflowed into others. It was a period of great and durable 
conquests in the domain of science, rich in leaders who held 
high the best traditions of scholarship and widened the 
bounds of human knowledge. 

The great political achievements of the period lay in the 
administrative and economic questions met and solved by 
Prussian statesmen. Prussia had to undergo the most thor- 



REFORMS IN PRUSSIA 147 

ough reorganization. Before German unity could be The 

achieved Prussian unity must be secured. The treaties of ^^ ^*'^" 

. . . ment of 

1815 had transformed Prussia by almost doubling her terri- Prussian 

tory and her population. Out of ten million inhabitants unity im- 
five million were new subjects, difficult to assimilate: the in- pc^^^t^^fi. 
habitants of the Rhenish provinces had been for twenty 
years a part of the French Empire and were strongly at- 
tached to French ideas ; the Poles still bitterly regretted the 
loss of their former independence ; the Saxons resented their 
annexation to Prussia. These peoples did not feel them- 
selves Prussians, though fate had put them under a Prussian 
king. The task of building anew the Prussian state out 
of such varied elements, of making a thoroughly homo- 
geneous kingdom, was rendered all the more difficult from 
the fact that Prussia was divided into two separate, un- 
connected parts, an eastern and a western, separated by 
Hanover, Brunswick, and Hesse-Cassel. Her boundaries 
were not those of a healthy state. These were the problems 
whose solution would take time. Meanwhile certain definite 
reforms were undertaken. 

The financial question was the most urgent, and this was Revision of 

faced heroically. The burden of the Napoleonic wars had ^^^ ?™ 

. 1 , 1 of taxation, 

been tremendous. The Prussian debt was large ; deficits 

were usual. By revising her system of taxation, and by 

rigid economy, order was finally brought about, there were 

surpluses instead of deficits, and in 1828 government bonds 

stood at par. 

The great interest of the Prussian Government in the ^^^ 
• 1T1 . 1 •. p ,^ i question 

material development and prosperity oi the country was ^^ ^j^^ 

best shown in its tariff policy. Prussia, as has been said, tariff. 

was divided into two unequal and unconnected parts. The 

boundaries were very extensive, increased still further by 

the fact that entirely within her territory lay states or 

fragments of other states independent of her. Moreover, 

the economic conditions in the eastern part of the realm 

were essentially different from those in the western ; the 



148 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

one agricultural, the other industrial. There was nothing 
like freedom of trade between the different parts. Indeed, 
there were in old Prussia alone sixty-seven different tariff 
systems in operation, separating district from district. 
Cities were shut off from the surrounding country districts 
by tariff walls, and province from province. All this meant 
that commerce could not flourish, hampered on every side, 
and that industries, the support of commerce, could not 
expand, owing to narrow and uncertain markets. Under 
these conditions one industry thrived — smuggling. The 
smugglers' trade was easy, owing to the fact that the fron- 
tiers to be guarded were over 4,000 miles long, a line that 
could only be guarded by a very large number of customs 
officials, which would involve great expense. All this was 
changed in 1818, under the influence of a great financial 
reformer, Maassen. All internal customs were abohshed 
and free trade was established throughout all Prussia. Then 
a tariff, very simple and covering few commodities, was 
established against the rest of the world. This tariff was 
put low enough to make smuggling unprofitable. Products 
that would be brought over sea were taxed higher, as they 
must enter by the few ports, which could be easily guarded. 
Having established a common tariff for her own kingdom, 
Prussia sought to induce other German states to enter into 
union with her, to adopt the same tariff against other na- 
tions and free trade with each other. She offered to share 
the total revenues collected pro rata according to popula- 
tion. The other states protested vehemently at first against 
what they considered the high-handed measures of the larger 
state, but they finally saw the advantages of union. The 
first to join were those which were entirely inclosed or which 
had parts entirely inclosed by Prussia ; whose commerce 
with the outside world must be through Prussian territory. 
The Between 1819 and 1828 the little Thuringian duchies entered 

ZoUverein. this ZoUverein, or Tariff Union. The southern and central 
states of Germany held aloof and even formed rival tariff 



THE TARIFF UNION 149 

unions of their own. These, however, did not prosper. 
One by one the other states joined the Prussian Union, led 
thereto by the apparent advantages of free trade with each 
other and by Prussia's liberal terms. By 1842 all, save the 
Hanseatic towns and Mecklenburg, Hanover, and Austria, 
had joined. The treaties between the co-operating states 
upon which the union rested were made for brief periods, but 
were constantly renewed. 

The advantages of the Zollverein were both economic and The ad- 
political. Industry grew rapidly by the apphcation of the vantages 
principle of free trade to the states of Germany. It created _g_gij, 
a real national unity in economic matters, at a time when 
Germany was politically only the semblance of a union; it 
accustomed German states to co-operation without Austria, 
and it taught them the advantages of Prussian leadership. 
Men began to see that a Germany could exist without Aus- 
tria. The Zollverein is generally considered in a very real 
sense to have been the beginning of German unity. 

As long as Frederick William III lived it was recognized Death of 

that no changes would be made in the political institutions _5®, f"*' 
• -1 11- T • William 

of Prussia. It was tacitly understood that his declining jjj^ 

years should not be disturbed, that the demands for reforms 
should not be pressed. But when he died in 1840, says 
von Treitschke, " all the long pent up grievances and hopes 
of Prussia overflowed irresistibly, gushing and foaming like 
molten metal when the spigot is knocked out." All eyes 
were now turned upon his son and successor, Frederick 
William IV. 

The new King, forty-five years of age, was already well Frederick 
known as a man of unusual intellectual gifts — quick, mobile, ' 

enthusiastic, imaginative, an eloquent conversationalist and 
public speaker. He was a patron of learning, surrounding 
himself with scholars, artists, and writers. Goethe had said 
of him that *' so great a talent must awaken new talents in 
others." From his general intellectual restlessness and lib- 
erality much was hoped, as it was also known that he had 



150 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

latterly not approved the policy of his father. This im- 
pression he confirmed by his acts at the opening of his 
reign. He issued an amnesty pardoning political prisoners. 
He restored Arndt to his professorship at Bonn. He re- 
leased Jahn. In a series of impassioned utterances he spoke 
glowingly of Prussia's destiny. It seemed that a new and 
liberal era was dawning. 

But disillusionment soon began. The people wanted re- 
forms and expected them from the new King. His predeces- 
sor had consented to the creation of local diets for local 
The demand concerns in each of the provinces into which Prussia was 
for a par- divided. He had promised a central parliament but had 
liament. jjq^ kept the promise. The demand now was for this. 
Would Frederick William IV grant it? This question was 
asked him by the estates of the Province of Prussia. His 
answer was kindly and vague. A little later a real answer 
came in the form of an ordinance which somewhat increased 
the powers of the provincial estates and provided that dele- 
gations from each should unite in Berlin. This was not at 
all what was wanted. Several of the provincial estates de- 
manded the fulfilment of the promises of 1815. Books ap- 
peared discussing constitutional questions. The press took 
the matter up vehemently, the censorship having been some- 
what slackened. The King apparently made no effort to 
win back the favor of his people. His policy was evidently 
purely reactionary. Popular meetings were forbidden in 
certain provinces; the press, too free for his satisfaction, 
was shackled again. Even the independence of the judiciary 
was threatened. 

Year after year went by and the people became impatient 
because no parliament was created. The King, meanwhile 
wavering between the most exalted notions of the divine 
origin and nature of his position and his desire to live in 
harmony with his age, sketched plan after plan of an as- 
sembly which should not be representative, which should co- 
operate with him, and which should quiet the insistent clamor 



THE UNITED LANDTAG OF 1847 151 

of his people. Finally, on February 3, 1847, he issued a 
Letter Patent which marks the beginning of the constitu- The letter 
tional history of Prussia. By this Patent it was announced 
that the king would summon all the provincial assemblies 1347^ 
to meet in one general assembly or United Landtag when- 
ever the needs of the state should demand new loans, the 
levying of new taxes, or the augmentation of those already 
existing. The United Landtag was to have the right of 
petition, and the king might consult it in regard to new 
legislation. There were to be two chambers, meeting apart, 
except when considering financial questions, the former a 
chamber of lords, the other of the three estates. At first 
enthusiastic, the people were shortly chagrined at the out- 
come of all their efforts. The Landtag was not to meet 
at definite periods but only when the king should summon 
it. It was to resemble a medieval diet more than a modern 
parliament. Even its power in financial matters was greatly 
limited. All discussion involving the tariff was reserved 
for the Zollverein. Provincial and local taxes remained to 
be determined absolutely by the crown. In case of war 
the Government might increase the existing taxes, being 
merely obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the 
next Landtag. Even the right of petition was carefully 
restricted. The king would receive petitions only when two- 
thirds of both houses had agreed upon them. 

This was not the constitution the people had been so long popular 
demanding. By it the king was not required ever to call the dissatis- 
United Landtag together. Moreover, he retained the com- 
plete law-making power and an almost unrestricted power 
over the nation's purse. The new parliament was to repre- 
sent, not the people, but social classes. 

Moreover, in the speech from the throne, with which ■' 
Frederick William IV opened this assembly in the following 
April, he took particular pains to state that this Patent 
was no constitution creating a parliament representing the 
people of Prussia. " Never will I allow," he said, " a sheet 



152 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

of written paper to come, like a second Providence, between 
our Lord God in Heaven and this land, to govern us bj 
its paragraphs. The crown cannot and ought not to de- 
pend upon the will of majorities. I should never have called 
you together if I had the least idea that you could dream 
of playing the part of so-called representatives of the 
people." 
Conflict A conflict began at once between the King and the United 

between Landtag, which developed into a deadlock. The Landtag 
William IV demanded a real parliament. The King demanded loans, 
and the Neither yielded to the other, and in June 1847 the Landtag 
United ^g^g dissolved. Nothing had been accomplished. A grave 

constitutional crisis had been created. The monarch stood 
in direct opposition to the Liberals. Such was the danger- 
ously overheated state of the public mind when news of the 
revolution in Paris reached Berlin. 

AUSTRIA 

Austria The history of Austria between 1815 and 1848 resembles 

not a in some respects that of the German Confederation in that 

omoge- .^ ^^g ^^^ ^Y^Q evolution of a single homogeneous state, 
neous state. ° '^ 

Movements proceeded from several local centers. For pur- 
poses of simplification it is well to examine each in turn. 
In the provinces of Austria proper, in the western part 
of the empire, the movement took the form of a demand 
for the diminution of the autocratic system. There, as 
elsewhere in Europe, after 1840 a popular feeling that the 
time had come for larger liberty was distinctly perceptible. 
Yet there the difficulty of its achievement was at its maxi- 
mum. For as long as Francis I lived there was no hope 
of sympathy from the throne. His successor, Ferdinand I 
(1835-48), was a man of less ability and was, moreover, 
mentally incapacitated for rule. This meant that Metter- 
nich and his colleagues exercised nearly uncontrolled power. 
Political During this period little change occurred in the conditions 

stagnation, of the Austrian provinces. Liberal opinions could not be 



THE GROWTH OF NATIONALITIES 153 

freely published owing to the severity of the censorship; 

yet there were a few journaUsts and lawyers who managed 

to express a desire for some measure of political freedom 

and for a constitution. One significant feature of the time The indus- 

was the transition from the old to the new in the economic 

lution. 

sphere. The introduction of machinery, bringing with it 
the factory system, was now accomplished, and was accom- 
panied by the terrible evils which had marked this transition 
in England and in France. Many laborers were thrown out 
of work, wandered about the country, demoralized, starving, 
and drifted to the cities, particularly to Vienna, forming a 
desperate element, easily incited to deeds of violence, as the 
issue was to show. An industrial crisis preceded the political 
crisis of 1848 and profoundly influenced its course. 

The period preceding 1848, poHtically of shght interest. The devel- 
was rendered notable by the development of the spirit of na- ^ .^ 
tionality among several of the varied peoples who had hither- ^^gg within 
to been quiescent under the House of Hapsburg. This the empire, 
was the most significant phenomenon of these years, as it 
was to be the most permanent in its effects. This feeling 
of separate individuality, this assertion of the rights of 
nationality, which is one of the principal features of the 
history of the nineteenth century everywhere, had come to 
be the most salient characteristic of Austrian evolution in 
particular, and is so still. Under the aegis of the House 
of Hapsburg several nations were arising and were strug- 
ghng for a larger and more independent place in the col- 
lective state. This spirit was particularly pronounced in 
Bohemia and Hungary. 

Bohemia had been united with Austria since 1526. Its Bohemia, 
population consisted of Germans and of a branch of the 
Slavic race called Czechs. The Germans had for more than 
two centuries been preponderant. Their language was that 
of the government, of educated people, the language of 
literature and science, the Czechish being regarded as fit 
only for peasants. But after 1815 the popular conscious- 



154! CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

ness gradually awoke. The idea that the Czechish nation- 
ality could be revived took strong hold of a few educated 
men who believed that Bohemia should be torn from German 
control and that the native Czechish element should be put 
in its place. The movement was at first confined to univer- 
sity men, was literary and scientific. A group of historians 
arose, of whom Palacky was the leader, who by their his- 
tories of Bohemia when she had been an independent kingdom, 
inculcated the wish that she might again be one. Pride 
was enlisted, too, by reviving a knowledge of the ancient 
native literature. Henceforth every Czech should cease 
to use German and speak his own native tongue. This 
movement grew, passing from university circles to the mass 
of the people. It was directed against the German office- 
holders in Bohemia and against the use of German in the 
government and in education. While during the period 
from 1815 to 1848 it accomplished no practical reform, it 
created a public opinion and a vehement aspiration for na- 
tional independence that constituted an important factor in 
the general situation of that year. 
Hungary. A more pronounced national and racial movement within 

the empire was going on at the same time in Hungary, 
a country peopled by several different races speaking differ- 
ent languages and possessing different institutions. The 
leading races were the Magyars ; the Slavs, broken up into 
several branches, north and south of the Magyars ; the Ger- 
mans or Saxons; and the Roumanians. The Magyars, 
though numerically a minority of the whole people, were 
more numerous than any other one race, were the most de- 
veloped politically, and had, ever since they had come into 
the country in the ninth century, regarded it as their own 
and had paid scant attention to the other races. Two sec- 
tions of Hungary, Croatia, peopled almost entirely by Slavs, 
and Transylvania, the majority of whose inhabitants were 
Roumanians, were somewhat differentiated from Hungary 
proper, where the Magyars predominated, in that, though 



THE CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY 155 

annexed countries and subject to the king of Hungary, they 
enjoyed a certain measure of autonomy. Croatia, for in- 
stance, had a viceroy or ban and a Diet of its own. Transyl- 
vania had its Estates, infrequently convoked. 

Hungary had a constitution dating in part from the thir- The 

teenth century. It was in 1222 that the Golden Bull of Hungarian 

Constitu- 
Andreas II was issued, nearly contemporary with Magna ^j^^^ 

Charta. There was a Diet or Parliament meeting in 
Presburg in two chambers, or Tables, as they were called ; 
a Table of Magnates, composed of the highest nobility, of 
certain of the higher clergy and office-holders ; and a Table 
of Deputies, chosen by the congregations or county assem- 
blies, and by the free cities. Hungary was divided into 
more than fifty counties, each one of which had its local 
assembly or congregation. 

The nobility alone possessed political power. Only nobles The impor- 
sat in the national Diet, and only nobles were members of t3.nce of the 
the county assemblies. The nobility was itself divided into 
two sections, the very wealthy, the Magnates, about five hun- 
dred in number, and the petty nobility, numbering perhaps 
seven hundred thousand, poor, in many cases uneducated and 
hardly to be distinguished from the peasants among whom 
they lived, save by their privileges. Everywhere feudalism 
flourished in its most flagrant form and perhaps as nowhere 
else in Europe. The aristocracy not only constituted all 
the assemblies, national and local, but they filled all the 
offices. They enjoyed old feudal dues and paid no taxes 
themselves. The very tax intended to defray the expense The 
of the local administration, which they monopolized, was laid prevalence 
upon the class beneath. Their lands could be alienated , ,. 
only to members of their own order. Their palaces in the 
cities were not subject to municipal jurisdiction. The en- 
tire class of the bourgeoisie had only one vote in the Diet. 
Neither bourgeoisie nor the laboring class possessed any 
power. The immense mass of the population, the peasantry, 
were subject to a most oppressive serfdom. 



156 CENTRA!. EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

It is evident that though Hungary had a constitution 
it was not of the modern type but of the medieval. To 
take a place among the progressive lands of Europe, Hun- 
gary needed to be brought within the region of modern ideas. 
One of those who saw this and whose whole activity was to 
contribute powerfully to this modernization, was Count Ste- 
Szechenyi phen Szechenyi, a great Hungarian Magnate who, himself 
and reform. ^^ aristocrat, boldly told his fellow-aristocrats that the 
time for reform had come, that they must reform them- 
selves, and must change radically the conditions of their 
country. He was rather a social than a political reformer, 
interested chiefly in the encouragement of material prosper- 
ity, which necessitated the removal of many abuses from 
which the aristocracy profited. He devoted his time, his 
money, and his immense prestige to social and economic im- 
provement, to the draining of marshes, the building of roads 
and tunnels and bridges, the clearing of the Danube for nav- 
igation. His aim was to make Hungary a busy, prosperous, 
modern industrial state instead of an illustration of belated 
medievalism. He encouraged the foundation of learned 
societies, the use of the national language, the establishment 
of a national theater. His work was mainly outside the 
Diet and consisted chiefly of his vigorous writings and his 
example. He was not a political revolutionist, not an 
enemy of Austria. The spirit in which he worked was 
shown by his admonition to his countrymen : " Do not con- 
stantly trouble yourselves with the vanished glories of the 
past, but rather let your determined patriotism bring about 
the prosperity of the beloved fatherland. Many there are who 
think that Hungary has been, but I for my part like to 
think that Hungary shall be." 
The policy Meanwhile the Diet, controlled in both houses by the 
of the Magyar aristocracy, accomplished little in the direction of 

reform. It was not willing to curtail its own privileges. 
But, on the other hand, it was willing to assert itself against 
the Austrian Government, to attempt to gain a larger in- 



THE AMBITIONS OF THE MAGYARS 157 

dependence for Hungary in the collective state. One gain 
it made — that concerning the Magyar language. 

Latin was the language used in the Hungarian Diet. It '^^^ 
was the language of the Roman Catholic Church and had -^gg^-on 
formerly been the language of diplomacy. In a country 
where so many tongues were spoken its use seemed a 
felicitous arrangement, favoring no one race. It was neu- 
tral. But the Magyars, now alive with the spirit of self- 
assertion, sought to depose Latin and to place Magyar in its 
stead as the official language. This they finally achieved in 
1844. The Croatian deputies, on the other hand, wished 
still to speak Latin, but were not permitted to. The Mag- 
yars showed that their desire was not the freedom of the 
several peoples of which Hungary was composed, but only 
their own freedom, indeed, the freedom to impose their 
will upon others. Their object was the complete Magyar- 
ization of all who lived in Hungary, were they Croatians, 
Servians, Roumanians, or what else. In this struggle over 
language lay the germ of a conflict of races which was later 
to be most disastrous to the Magyars themselves. They were 
not willing to grant to others the rights which they had 
demanded for themselves. 

While the Hungarian Diet was zealous in asserting the Rise of a 
claims of Hungary against Austrian domination, and was ^^<i^cal 
eager to air Hungarian grievances against the Imperial Gov- 
ernment, it refused to undertake any large measure of inter- 
nal reform. The Magnates, intent upon the preservation of 
their unrivaled position, blocked the way of even those 
changes which the other chamber, ^j'epresentative of the 
numerous lower nobility, was disposed to grant. Gradually 
there grew up as a result a party much more radical, nour- 
ished in the ideas of western Europe, democratic, and be- 
lieving that the existing medieval institutions, the Diet and 
the county assemblies, must be thoroughly reorganized or 
swept away before the new ideas could be worked out. Kossuth, 
This Liberal party was led by Louis Kossuth, one of 1802-1894. 



158 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

Hungary's greatest heroes, and Francis Deak, whose per- 
sonality is less striking, but whose services to his country 
were to be more solid and enduring. Kossuth had first 
come into notice as the editor of a paper which described 
in vivid and liberal vein the debates in the Diet. When it 
was forbidden to print these reports he had them litho- 
graphed. When this was forbidden he had them written 
out by hand by a corps of amanuenses and distributed by 
servants. Finally he was arrested and sentenced to prison. 
During his imprisonment of three years Kossuth applied 
himself to serious studies, particularly to that of the English 
language, with such success that he was able later to address 
large audiences in England and the United States with 
remarkable effect. In 1840 he was released and obtained 
permission to edit a daily paper. 

After 1840 the mass of the nation turned away 
from Szechenyi and toward Kossuth and Deak. Szechenyi, 
a Magnate, wished the gradual reform of his country from 
above, and had no sympathy with democratic movements. 
Kossuth, on the other hand, was the very incarnation of the 
great democratic ideas of the age. Sharing fully Szechen- 
yi's desire to place Hungary in the front rank of modern 
nations, to develop its material prosperity, its civilization, 
he did not believe it possible to accomplish this by the meth- 
ods hitherto followed, and without a thoroughly modem 
constitutional government. He believed that free political 
institutions contribute directly to material well-being and to 
civilization. 

Kossuth, now as a brilliant editor and as an even more 
brilliant orator, conducted an agitation that had little in 
common with the reform movement of the Liberals up to 
this time. He did not believe that the necessary reforms 
could ever be brought about by existing agencies — either by 
the Diet or by the powerful county assemblies, both con- 
trolled by the nobility. He wished to erase all distinctions 
between noble and non-noble, to fuse all into one common 



HUNGARY IN 1847 159 

whole. He demanded democratic reforms In every depart- 
ment of the national life; abolition of the privileges of the 
nobility and of their exemption from taxation; equal rights 
and equal burdens for all citizens; trial by jury; reform of 
the criminal code. Kossuth's impassioned appeals were made 
directly to the people. He sought to create, and did create, 
a powerful public opinion clamorous for change. This 
vigorous liberal opposition to the established order, an op- 
position ably led and full of fire, grew rapidly. In 1847 
it published its programme, drawn up by Deak. This de- ^^® 
manded the taxation of the nobles, the control by the Diet ^^^ Hunga- 
of all national expenditures, larger liberty for the press, rians ia 
and a complete right of public meeting and association ; 1847. 
it demanded also that Hungary should not be subordinate 
to Austrian policy, and to the Austrian provinces. Such 
was the situation when the great reform wave of 1848 began 
to sweep over Europe. 

ITALY 

The Italian revolutions of 1820 and 1821, and of 1831 and "aly after 

1831 
1832 had had no depth of root, no powers of endurance 

and had been easily crushed out by a few thousand Austrian 

bayonets. The humiliation of liberal-minded Italians was 

great indeed. It was clear to all that the methods hitherto 

employed would be inadequate to the end. The next fifteen 

years were devoted to a deeper study of the problem, to the 

elaboration of several plans for its solution, to the long and 

patient processes of preparing for an independent national 

existence a people sorely lacking the most essential elements 

characteristic of such a state. During this period a group Importance 

of writers figure with unusual prominence. The previous of a group 

revolutions had failed, partly at least, because of the narrow 

basis on which they rested. Disaffected army circles and 

members of a loosely organized, incompetently directed secret 

society, the Carbonari, had attempted these insurrections. 

The basis was narrow at best ; moreover, the Italians had 



160 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

not yet learned the fundamental necessity of solidarity. In- 
surrections were pitifully local; Italians of different states 
rendered each other no assistance, or only the slightest, in 
movements that would have a common advantage for all and 
that to succeed must have the support of all. It was im- 
perative that a universal mental state be created, that a 
common aspiration characterize the liberal elements every- 
where, that an Italy of the imagination and affection should 
exist, even if the Italy of reality was only an expression 
of geography. All Italians must hold a common set of 
political ideas, whether they be Piedmontese, Sicilians, Vene- 
tians, or subjects of the Pope. To bring this about was 
the work of several gifted men, working mainly through 
the channel of literature. 
Joseph Foremost among these was Joseph Mazzini. Mazzini was 

Mazzini, ^-^e spiritual force of the Italian resurrection, the prophet 
1805-1872. ' x- x- 

of a state that was not yet but was to be, destined from 

youth to feel with extraordinary intensity a holy mission 
imposed upon him. He was born in 1805 in Genoa, his 
father being a physician and a professor in the university. 
Even in his boyhood he was morbidly impressed with the 
unhappiness and misery of his country. " In the midst of 
the noisy, tumultuous life of the students around me I was," 
he says, in his interesting though fragmentary autobiog- 
raphy, " somber and absorbed and appeared like one sud- 
denly grown old. I childishly determined to dress always 
in black, fancying myself in mourning for my country." 
It was after the failure of 1821 that Mazzini first became 
conscious of the mission of his life. While walking one Sun- 
day with his mother and a friend in the streets of Genoa, 
they were addressed, he says, " by a tall, dark-bearded man 
with a severe, energetic countenance and a fiery glance that I 
have never since forgotten. He held out a white handker- 
chief towards us, merely saying, ' For the refugees of 
Italy.' " The incident, simple as it was, made a profound 
impression upon Mazzini's ardent nature. " The idea of an 



MAZZINI AND " YOUNG ITALY " 161 

existing wrong in my country against which it was a duty His intense 

to struggle, and the thought that I, too, must bear my part P^''^^® ^^°^' 

in that struggle, flashed before my mind on that day, for the 

first time, never again to leave me. The remembrance of 

those refugees, many of whom became my friends in after 

life, pursued me wherever I went by day and mingled with 

my dreams by night. I would have given, I know not what, 

to follow them, I began collecting names and facts, and 

studied as best I might the records of that heroic struggle, 

seeking to fathom the causes of its failure." 

As Mazzini grew up all his inclinations were toward a 
literary life. " A thousand visions of historical dramas and 
romances floated before my mental eye." But this dream 
he abandoned, " my first great sacrifice," for political agita- 
tion. He joined the Carbonari, not because he approved even 
then of their methods, but because at least they were a revolu- 
tionary organization. As a member of it, he was arrested His impris- 
in 1830. The governor of Genoa told Mazzini's father that o^^^nt. 
his son was " gifted with some talent," but was " too fond of 
walking by himself at night absorbed in thought. What on 
earth has he at his age to think about.'* We don't hke 
young people thinking without our knowing the subject 
of their thoughts." Mazzini was imprisoned in the fortress 
of Savona, Here he could only see the sky and the sea, 
" the two grandest things in Nature, except the Alps," 
he said. After six months he was released, but was forced 
to leave his country. For nearly all of forty years he 
was to lead the bitter life of an exile in France, in Switzer- 
land, but chiefly in England, which became his second home. 

After his release from prison Mazzini founded in 1831 a Founder of 
society, " Young Italy," destined to be an important factor °^f^^ 
in making the new Italy. The Carbonari had led two revolu- 
tions and had failed. Moreover, he disliked that organization 
as being merely destructive in its aim, having no definite plan 
of reconstruction. " Revolutions," he said, " must be made 
by the people and for the people." His own society must 



162 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

be a secret organization ; otherwise it would be stamped out. 
But it must not be merely a body of conspirators ; it must 
be educative, proselyting, seeking to win ItaKans by its 
moral and intellectual fervor to an idealistic view of life, 
a self-sacrificing sense of duty. Only those under forty 
were to be admitted to membership, because his appeal was 
particularly to the young. " Place youth at the head of 
the insurgent multitude," he said, " you know not the secret 
of the power hidden in these youthful hearts, nor the magic 
influence exercised on the masses by the voice of youth. You 
will find among the young a host of apostles of the new 
religion." With Mazzini the liberation and unification of 
The Italy was indeed a new religion, appealing to the loftiest 

methods of emotions, entailing complete self-sacrifice, complete absorp- 
' tion in the ideal, and the young were to be its apostles. 
Theirs was to be a missionary life. He told them to travel, 
to bear from land to land, from village to village, the torch 
of liberty, to expound its advantages to the people, to 
establish and consecrate the cult. He told them to " climb 
the mountains and share the humble food of the laborer; 
to visit the workshops and the artizans; to speak to them 
of their rights, of the memories of their past, of their past 
glories, of their former commerce ; to recount to them the 
endless oppression of which they were ignorant, because no 
one took it upon himself to reveal it." Let them not quail 
before the horrors of torture and imprisonment that might 
await them in the holy cause. " Ideas grow quickly when 
watered with the blood of martyrs." Never did a cause 
have a more dauntless leader, a man of purity of life, a 
man of imagination, of poetry, of audacity, gifted, more- 
over, with a marvelous command of persuasive language. 
The response was overwhelming. By 1833 the society reck- 
oned 60,000 members. Branches were founded everywhere. 
Garibaldi, whose name men were later to conjure with, joined 
it on the shores of the Black Sea. This is the romantic 
proselyting movement of the nineteenth century, all the 



THE AIMS OF " YOUNG ITALY " 163 

more remarkable from the fact that its members were un- 
known men, bringing to their work no advantage of wealth 
or social position. But, as their leader wrote later, " All 
great national movements begin with the unknown men of 
the people, without influence except for the faith and will 
that counts not time or difficulties." 

The programme of this society was clear and emphatic. The aims 

First, Austria must be driven out. This was the condition °^ 

society, 
precedent to all success. War must come — the sooner the 

better. Let not Italians rely on the aid of foreign govern- 
ments, upon diplomacy, but upon their own unaided strength. 
Austria could not stand against a nation of twenty millions 
fighting for their rights. 

At a time when the obstacles seemed insuperable, when Unity a 

but few Italians dreamed of unity even as an ultimate ideal, P^^*'"^^"^^ 

... ideal. 

Mazzini declared that it was a practicable ideal, that the 

seemingly impossible was easily possible if only Italians would 
dare to show their power; and his great significance in Itahan 
history is that he succeeded in imparting his burning faith 
to multitudes of others. " The one thing wanting to twenty 
millions of Italians, desirous of emancipating themselves, 
is not power, but faith," he said. His life was one long 
apostolate, devoted to the preaching of the true gospel. His 
writings thrilled with confidence and hope. " Young Italy 
must be neither a sect nor a party, but a faith and an 
apostolate." But if Italy were united what should be 
its form of government.'' Mazzini believed that it should 
be a republic, because sovereignty resides essentially in the 
people, and can only completely express itself in that form. 
Moreover, " our great memories are republican," and " there 
are no monarchical elements in Italy," no dynasty rendered 
illustrious by glory or by important services to Italy, 
" no powerful and respected aristocracy to take the inter- 
mediate place between the throne and the people." That 
a solution of the Italian problem lay in combining the exist- 
ing states into a federation, Mazzini did not for a moment 



164 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 



Mazzini as 
a conspir- 
ator. 



Gioberti, 
1801-1852. 



believe. Every argument for federation was a stronger 
argument for unity. " Never rise in any other name than 
that of Italy and of all Italy." 

Mazzini's work, when it passed from the realms of ex- 
hortation, of ideas, to practice, proved ineffective. Young 
Italy attempted several insurrections which were less im- 
portant and less successful than those conducted by the 
Carbonari. He himself lacked some of the qualities of 
practical leadership. He was dogmatic, intolerant. He 
underestimated the strength of the opposition. As a man 
of action he was not successful. Nevertheless is he one of 
the chief of the makers of Italy. He and the society which 
he founded constituted a leavening, quickening force in the 
realm of ideas. Around them grew up a patriotism for a 
country that existed as yet only in the imagination. Their 
influence even reached the king of Piedmont, who had driven 
Mazzini into exile and who kept him there. " Ah, Ricci," 
said Charles Albert, " the form of governments is not eternal ; 
we shall march with the times." 

But to many serious students of the Italian problem Maz- 
zini seemed far too radical; seemed a mystic and a rhetori- 
cian full of resounding and thrilUng phrases, but with little 
practical sense. Men of conservative temperament could not 
follow him. Repelled by the needless waste of life in small 
and pitifully weak insurrections, alienated by the sweeping 
character of his demands, these moderate reformers thought 
that the problem was of a different nature and ought to re- 
ceive a different solution. They began about 1840 to ex- 
press their views in books which were widely read and which 
exerted a considerable influence. 

One of these was " The Moral and Civil Primacy of the 
Italians," a book by a Piedmontese priest, Gioberti, forced, 
like Mazzini, to live abroad in exile many years because 
of his radicalism. Gioberti believed that as Italy had been 
the fatherland of Dante and Napoleon, so it must always 
be the " home of creative genius." If so, it must occupy 



THE PROBLEM OF ITALY 165 

no less a position in the world than independence. He 
believed in independence as fervidly as did Mazzini, but he 
did not believe in the possibility of Italian unity, for Italy 
had been too long divided. The divisions were deep-seated, 
historic, insuperable. Unity could never be brought about 
by peaceful methods, and ought never to be attempted by 
force. Gioberti believed in a federation of the states of 
Italy under the presidency or leadership of the Pope. Thus 
Italy would be secure from foreign aggression or control 
and a free field would be opened for all kinds of internal 
improvement. He held that the genius of Italy was mon- 
archical and aristocratic, whereas Mazzini had declared it 
to be republican and democratic. He believed that the 
futility of conspiracies and secret societies and insurrections 
had been proved, that they did not further but hindered the 
cause. He concurred with Mazzini in believing in inde- 
pendence. 

But to many who did not agree with Mazzini, Gioberti's D'Azeglio, 
idea that hope lay in the Pope seemed preposterous. This 
attitude was expressed by D'Azeglio in his " Recent Events 
in Romagna " (1846), a scathing commentary on the 
wretched misgovernment of the Pope within his own do- 
minions, a vivid portrayal of the evils under which his 
subjects groaned. D'Azeglio also denounced the republican 
attempts at insurrection. Hope lay, in his opinion, in the 
king of Piedmont. 

Still another point of view was represented by Cesare Balbo Balbo, 
in his "Hopes of Italy" (1844). He too was a pied- ^''S^-^^^^- 
montese. He did not believe in unity; that was a madman's 
dream. Like Gioberti, he believed in federation, but federa- 
tion could not be accomplished as long as Austria remained 
an Italian power. " Without national independence other 
good things are as nought." Austria then must be elim- 
inated, but how.'' Not by a war against her of the Italian 
people or of the Italian princes, nor yet by foreign aid, 
but by the disruption of the Turkish Empire, which he 



166 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

felt to be near at hand. Might not Austria expand east- 
ward at the expense of the Sultan, and might she not then 
" make Italy a present of her independence ? " Certainly 
a fanciful idea. Balbo pointed out the defects of the Italian 
character, and urged his countrymen to cast off their indo- 
lence, to cease to be " the land of the olive and the orange," 
and to develop strength and earnestness of character. 
The Eisor- Out of this fermentation of ideas grew a more vigorous 
gimento. spirit of unrest, of dissatisfaction, of aspiration. This is 
the beginning of what is called in Italian the Risorgimento — 
the resurrection. Although ideas of how that resurrection 
should be brought about were at variance with each other, 
every utterance urged it forward. No political party was 
organized, but a general state of mind was created which 
held that Italy must become independent, which meant that 
Austrian influence must be eliminated, and that the Italians 
could do this themselves, if they only would. The watch- 
word was given by Charles Albert, King of Piedmont. When 
asked how this great work could be accomplished, he said, 
" Italia fara da se," Italy will do it alone. 
Pius IX, Events in the realm of politics only intensified the effect 

isla-isifa ^^ these books, seeming to open wide the door of hope. In 
1846 a new Pope was elected, Pius IX. It was considered 
auspicious that he was chosen by the anti-Austrian mem- 
bers of the conclave. He was known to have read Gioberti. 
His first acts were liberal. He pardoned political offenders, 
thus condemning his predecessor's policy. He appointed 
a commission to consider the question of railways, whose 
introduction had been opposed by his predecessor, one reason 
having been, it was said, his belief that they would " work 
harm to religion." He protested against the Austrian occu- 
pation of Ferrara. Metternich viewed this tendency with 
alarm. He had previously said that a liberal Pope was 
an impossibility. Now that there appeared to be one, he 
declared it the greatest misfortune of the age. The Pope's 
statement " that he was resolved to preserve all his author- 



1846-1878. 



REFORMS IN PIEDMONT 16T 

Ity " passed unheeded in the momentary enthusiasm. " Be 
a believer," wrote Mazzini to him, " and unite Italy." 

Reforms were speedily granted in Tuscany and in Pied- 
mont by the princes, stimulated by the spectacle of a re- 
forming Pope. A citizens' guard was established in the 
former, that is, the people were given arms. This they 
believed would henceforth make despotism impossible. 
Charles Albert of Piedmont, hitherto called the " Hesitating Charles 
King," because of his constant vacillation between absolutism ^^^^^^' 
and liberalism, now veered toward the latter, influenced pig^mont 
by the action of the Pope and by the consensus of ideas 
represented in the Risorgimento. In October 1847 he issued 
a decree granting many reforms in local government, the 
organization of the police, and the censorship of the press. 
Shortly afterward he proclaimed the civil emancipation of 
Protestants. These reforms were received with great en- 
thusiasm, an enthusiasm vastly augmented by a letter which 
he sent at this time to a scientific congress in which he said: 
" If Providence sends us a war of Italian independence 
I will mount my horse with my sons. I will place myself 
at the head of an army. . . . What a glorious day it will 
be in which we can raise the cry of a war for the independence 
of Italy ! " 

In January 1848 a revolution broke out in the Kingdom 
of Naples, the first of that year of revolutions. The king, 
Ferdinand II, was forced to yield to the demand for a con- 
stitution. 

Such was the condition of Italy at the opening of 1848. ^*^ly ^^ 

The demand for reform was universal, but now news arrived . , 

of revolu- 

which caused Italians speedily to pass on from this to a tio^, 
far greater undertaking, the ending of foreign domination. 
The news was that the monarchy of Louis Philippe was 
overthrown; that the Second Republic was declared; that 
Germany had risen ; that Austria was in the throes of dis- 
memberment ; that Metternich's system had collapsed, and 
that he himself had been driven into exile whither he had 



168 CENTRAL EUROPE BETWEEN REVOLUTIONS 

previously driven so many. The hour for Italy seemed to 
have struck in the hour of the distress of Austria. For 
the year 1848 was to be one of revolution the like of which 
Europe had not known since the Napoleonic period. Events 
were to succeed each other of a most sensational character, 
and the reaction of these events upon each other, of nation 
upon nation, of parts of nations upon other parts, was to 
be the most distinguishing as well as the most confusing 
characteristic of the time. 



CHAPTER VIII 
CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 

Central Europe at the opening of 1848 was then in The great 

a restless, disturbed, expectant state. Everywhere men '^^'^**'^^ ^'^y 

uprising, 
were wearied with the old order and demanding change. A 

revolutionary spirit was at work, the public mind in Ger- 
many, Italy, and Austria was excited. Into a society so 
perturbed and so active came the news of the fall of Louis 
Philippe. It was the spark that set the world in conflagra- 
tion. The news was received with joy by the discontented 
everywhere, who by it were themselves nerved to resistless 
energy. Revolution succeeded revolution in the various 
countries with startling rapidity. The whole political system 
of conservatism seemed about to founder utterly. The great 
mid-century uprising of the peoples had begun. 

The storm-center of this general convulsion proved to be Vienna the 

Vienna, hitherto the proud bulwark of the established order, storm- 
center. 
Here m the Austrian Empire one of the most confused chap- 
ters in European history began. A wild welter of disintegra- 
ting forces threatened for a while the very submersion of the 
Danubian state. The movement was so complicated and 
intricate that to give a clear account of it is exceedingly 
difficult. The immediate impulse came from Hungary. 
There the Diet had been in session since 1847, engaged in 
working out moderate reforms for the kingdom. The effect The de- 
of the news of the fall of Louis Philippe was electrifying, cisive in- 
The passion of the hour was expressed in a flaming speech ^^ Hunearv 
by Kossuth, who proved himself a consummate spokesman 
for a people in revolt. Of impressive presence, and endowed 
with a wonderful voice, he was revolutionary oratory in- 
carnate. In a speech in the Diet, March 3, 1848, he voiced 

169 



170 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



The over- 
throw of 
Hetternich 



the feelings of the time, and seized the leadership from more 
moderate men. With bitter execration he fulminated against 
the Austrian Government as a charnel house whence issued 
suffocating vapors and pestilential winds benumbing the 
senses, deadening the national spirit. Only with a free con- 
stitution could the various races of Austria have a happy 
future and live together in brotherhood. The effect of this 
speech in Hungary and throughout the Austrian states was 
immediate and profound. Translated into German, and 
published in Vienna, it inflamed the passions of the people. 
Ten days later a riot broke out in Vienna itself, organized 
largely by students and workingmen. The soldiers fired and 
bloodshed resulted. Barricades were erected and the people 
and soldiers fought hand to hand. The crowd surged about 
and into the imperial palace, and invaded the hall in which 
the Diet was sitting, crying " Down with Metternich ! " Met- 
temich, who for thirty-nine years had stood at the head of 
the Austrian states, who was the very source and fount of 
reaction, imperturbable, pitiless, masterful, was now forced 
to resign, to flee in disguise from Austria to England, to 
witness his whole system crash completely beneath the on- 
slaught of the very forces for which he had for a generation 
shown contempt. 

The effect produced by the announcement of Metternich's 
fall was prodigious. It was the most astounding piece of 
news Europe had received since Waterloo. His fall was 
correctly heralded as the fall of a system hitherto impreg- 
nable. 

As Hungary, under the spell of Kossuth's oratory, had 
exerted an influence upon Vienna, so now the actions of the 
Viennese reacted upon Hungary. The Hungarian Diet, 
dominated by the reform and national enthusiasm just un- 
The March chained and constantly fanned by Kossuth, passed on March 
15th and the days succeeding the famous March Laws, by 
which the process of reforming and modernizing Hungary, 
which had been going on for some years, was given the finish- 



Laws. 



THE MARCH LAWS IN HUNGARY 171 

ing touch. These celebrated laws represented the demands of 
the Hungarian national party led by Kossuth. They con- 
cerned two great subjects, the internal reorganization of 
Hungary and the future relations of that kingdom to the 
empire as a whole. They swept away the old aristocratic 
political machinery and substituted a modern democratic 
constitution. Henceforth there was to be a Diet meeting 
annually, not at Presburg, a town near Austria, but at 
Budapest, in the very heart of the kingdom, a Diet, moreover, 
to be elected, not by the privileged nobility but by every 
Hungarian owning property to the value of about one 
hundred and fifty dollars. The feudal services owed the 
nobility by the peasants were abolished, and nothing was 
said of compensation, save that it was a " debt of honor," 
presumably to be discharged by the nation later. Religious 
freedom, liberty of the press, trial by jury, a national 
guard were all proclaimed. And as regards the relations 
of Hungary to the empire, it was declared that Hungary 
should henceforth have its own ministry, not only for domestic 
business, but also for war, finance, and foreign affairs. 
These latter departments had hitherto belonged to the 
central government. The March laws made Hungary prac- Hungary 
tically an independent nation. The only connection with Practically 
Austria was in the person of the monarch, who could act ^ 
in Hungary, however, only through this Hungarian ministry. 
The consent of the Vienna Government was all that was now 
needed to complete this virtual separation, and this consent 
was shortly given under the compulsion of dire necessity 
(March 31). Thus, with remarkable swiftness and without 
bloodshed, Hungary had practically won her independence. 
Henceforth she would be mistress of her own destinies. That 
she so understood the matter was shown by her creation of a 
national army with a national flag, and by the appointment 
of Hungarian ambassadors to foreign countries. 

The example of Hungary was speedily followed by Bo- Revolution 
hernia. Here there were two races : the Germans, wealthy. 



In Bohemia. 



173 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



Kevolution 

in the 

Austrian 

provinces. 



Revolution 
in 

lombardy- 
Venetia. 



educated, but a minority, and the Czechs, poorer, but a 
majority, ambitious to make Bohemia a separate state, sub- 
ject only to the emperor. The movement for the revival 
of Czechish nationality had been growing since 1830, ex- 
pressed particularly by the revival of the Czechish language 
as a mark of distinction from the German, as a method of 
spiritual unification. This had been accompanied, as we 
have seen, by a revival of interest in Czechish and Slavic 
history. The Bohemians now sent a deputation to Vienna 
March 19th, to ask for the complete equality of Czechs and 
Germans, for the familiar liberal reforms relating to the 
Diet, the press, taxation, and religion, and for local auton- 
omy. The Emperor a few days later conceded most of these 
demands. 

Meanwhile, recognizing the opportunity, the Liberals of 
Vienna and the Austrian provinces snatched at advantages 
for themselves. They demanded a constitution for the whole 
empire, and larger local self-government for the Austrian 
provinces. These demands, too, were granted, of course 
because of the helplessness of the Government. That help- 
lessness was due chiefly to the critical situation in Italy. In 
Hungary, Bohemia, and the Austrian provinces extensive 
rights in the direction of self-government, of constitutional 
reform, of personal freedom, had been won. But there had 
in no case been a repudiation of the empire. The emperor's 
legitimate headship was not questioned. But in Italy it was 
just this that was denied. There, Austria possessed the 
Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. The leading city of Lombardy 
was Milan, of Venetia, Venice. These states had long re- 
sented Austrian rule. Moreover, the other states of Italy 
had, since 1815, been practically dominated by Austria. 
In the peninsula the desire to expel the foreigner completely, 
and to achieve unity, was strong and growing. This is an 
important chapter of Italian history, which, however, can 
only be briefly treated here. The Italian reformers saw 
their opportunity in the disturbances of 1848. Milan rose 



REVOLUTION IN ITALY 173 

in insurrection, and expelled the Austrian troops, which were 
unprepared. Venice, under the inspiring- leadership of Daniel 
Manin, threw off the Austrian allegiance and declared itself 
a republic once more. Piedmont, an independent state, threw 
in its lot with these rebels, and sent its army into Lombardy. 
The other Italian states, Tuscany, the Papacy, and Naples, 
being compelled thereto by the popular demand, sent troops 
forward to northern Italy to co-operate. The moment 
seemed to have arrived for the liberation of the peninsula Italy 
from Austrian control. The peoples and governments ap- renounces 

Austris-Ti 

peared to be unanimous in their determination to drive out -q^^j-qj 
the Austrians once for all. Italy had practically declared 
its independence. Here, then, was the critical point that 
must be defended at all costs. Fortunately for Austria she 
had in northern Italy a commander equal to the task, 
Radetzky, a man who had served with credit in every Aus- 
trian war for sixty years, and who now at the age of eighty- 
two was to increase his reputation. Radetzky, forced 
out of Milan, retired to the famous Quadrilateral, the fort- 
resses on the Adige and the Mincio, Legnago, Peschiera, 
Verona and Mantua, one of the strongest military positions 
in Europe. Temporarily on the defensive, he believed he 
could win in the end if properly supported. He succeeded 
in convincing the Austrian Government that the crucial 
point was Italy, that here the fate of the empire would be 
decided. 

Meanwhile, there were March days in Germany, too. Aus- Bevolution 

tria's distress was Germany's opportunity as it was Italy's. _ 

-^ ^^ -J "^ Germany. 

As we have seen, the personality and system of Metternich 
had imposed themselves upon the German Confederation, 
and through it upon the states of which it was composed. 
The news of his fall had immediate and resounding effect, and 
particularly in Prussia, for months kept fevered by its 
struggle with Frederick William IV for a real parliament. 
On March 15th barricades were erected in Berlin and for a 
week the capital was the scene of great turbulence and some 



174 CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 

bloodshed. The King, who had begun to waver even before 

the outbreak, issued on the 18th a proclamation in which he 

summoned the United Landtag to co-operate in framing a 

constitution for the realm, guaranteeing the political and civil 

liberties that had been demanded for years. He also promised 

to lead in the attempt to achieve unity for Germany. 

T^c Por the moment seemed to have come when this, also, might 

, be wrung out of the chaos of the times, when the loose con- 
movement. .*=• ; . 

federation erected by the Congress of Vienna might be trans- 
formed into a strong and vigorous union. The Liberals had 
always desired this, and had recently become unusually active 
in outlining plans and preparing for the future. The revolu- 
tion in France gave them encouragement. The fact that 
Austria, interested in the preservation of the old Confedera- 
tion, was now impotent, that the princes everywhere in Ger- 
many were powerless to oppose, greatly advanced the cause. 
A self-constituted committee of Liberals met at Heidelberg 
early in March and decided to call a preliminary assembly 
to consider the whole question. This preliminary assembly, 
or Vorparlament, met from March 31st to April 4th and 
arranged for the election, directly by the people, of an 
assembly that should draw up the constitution for a united 
Germany. The princes of the different states were forced 
to sanction this proceeding, as was also the Diet. In April 
The Par- and May the elections were held, and on May 18th the first 
liaraent of German National Assembly or Parliament of Frankfort met 
ran or . ^^^[^ ^j^g high hopes of the people. 

Thus by the end of March 1848 revolution, universal in its 

range, was everywhere successful. The famous March Days 

had demolished the system of government that had held 

^j^g sway in Europe for a generation. Throughout the Austrian 

March Empire, in German}^ and in Italy the revolution was tri- 

revolutions umphant, Hungary and Bohemia had obtained sweeping con- 

, cessions; a constitution had been promised the Austrian 

trium- provinces ; several Italian states had obtained constitutions ; 

phant. the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom had declared itself inde- 



AUSTRIA RECOVERS LOST GROUND 175 

pendent of Austria, and the rest of Italy was moving to sup- 
port the rebels; a constitution had been promised Prussia, 
and a convention was about to meet to give liberty and unity 
to Germany. 

But the period of triumph was brief. At the moment of Austria 

greatest humiliation Austria began to show remarkable °^SiJ^^ e 

, . . » , , . work of 

powers of recovery. In the rivalries of her races, and in restoration. 

her army lay her salvation. The Government won its first 
victory, not in Italy, which was the critical point, but in 
Bohemia. There, in March, the Germans and the Czechs 
had worked together for the acquisition of the reforms de- 
scribed above. But shortly serious differences drove the two 
races apart. The Germans wished to have Bohemia repre- 
sented in the Frankfort Parliament, and included within the 
new Germany that was expected to issue from the delibera- 
tions of that body. To this the Czechs, however, were 
strongly opposed, fearing that this would only mean the 
complete submersion of their own nationality in that of 
Germany, the Germans being overwhelmingly predominant. 
What they aspired to was ultimately a Czechish or Slavic 
kingdom of their own. Fearing this very thing the Germans 
in Bohemia redoubled their efforts to make the connection 
between Bohemia and Germany close. Racial animosities 
were thus vigorously fanned. The result was street dis- 
turbances in Prague between the Germans and Czechs, cul- Bohemia 
minating in an insurrection June 12th. Windischgratz, coM^ierea. 
commander of the troops in Prague, proclaimed the city in 
a state of siege. Unable to restore quiet by negotiation he 
bombarded the city on the 17th, soon subdued it and was 
dictator. The army had won its first victory, and that, too, 
by taking advantage of the bitter racial antagonisms in 
which the Austrian Empire so abounded. 

In Italy also the army was victorious. Radetzky had Italy 

correctly foreseen the future. The Italians, after the first Partially 

... conquered, 
flush of enthusiasm, began to be torn by jealousies and dis- 
sensions. The Papal, Neapolitan, and Tuscan troops were 



176 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



Civil 

dissension 
within 
Hungary. 



recalled and northern Italy was left to itself. The rulers 
of those states had sent their armies forward to join Piedmont 
in the war with Austria, not because they had wished to, but 
because of popular pressure which they now felt able to def3^ 
Charles Albert was no match for Radetzky, and was defeated 
badly at Custozza, July 25th. Austria recovered Lombardy 
and could even have invaded Piedmont had it not been for 
the opposition of France and Great Britain. Hostilities 
were brought to a close by an armistice August 9th. By the 
middle of the summer of 1848 the Austrian Government 
was again in the saddle in Bohemia, and had partially re- 
covered its power in Italy. But in Vienna itself and in 
Hungary its position was still most precarious. 

Hungary, as we have seen, had won by the March Laws 
of 1848 a position of practical independence of Austria. 
It possessed its own ministry, which constituted the real 
government. The role of the Emperor was most circum- 
scribed, yet he was forced to endure this humiliation for 
the present. But the Austrian ministry was only biding its 
time to humble this arrogant Magyar Government. The 
opportunity came with the outbreak of civil dissension within 
Hungary itself. There racial and national rivalries rose 
to the highest pitch. The Magyars, though a minority of 
the whole people, had always been dominant and the victory 
of March had been their victory. But the national feeling 
was strong and growing with Serbs, Croatians, and Rou- 
manians. These, in the summer of 1848, demanded of the 
Hungarian Diet much the same privileges which the Magj^ars 
had won for themselves from the Vienna Government. They 
wished local self-government and the recognition of their 
own languages and peculiar customs. To this the Magyars 
would not for a moment consent. They intended that there 
should be but one nationality in Hungary — that of the 
Magyars. Individual civil equality should be guaranteed 
to all the inhabitants of the kingdom of whatever race, 
but no separate or partly separate nations, and no other 



DISSENSIONS WITHIN HUNGARY 177 

official language than their own. They, therefore, refused 
these demands point-blank. As a consequence, the bitterest 
race hatreds broke out in this Hungarian state, whose power 
had been so recently established, and was so lightly grounded. 
The Magyars insisted that the Magyar language should 
be taught in all the schools in Croatia and should be used 
in all official communications between that province and the 
central government in Budapest. The Croatians resented The 
this uncompromising and ungenerous policy and their resent- 5°^ ^^^^ 
ment rapidly became rebellion. The Austrian Government against the 
appointed Jellachich, a Croatian colonel and a bitter oppo- Magyars, 
nent of the Magyars, as governor or ban of Croatia. This the 
Hungarians felt to be an insult, and their relations with the 
Vienna Government became very much strained. Jellachich 
labored from the outset to fan the flames of this hatred 
of Croat and Magyar. Would the Austrian Government 
sanction these acts of one of its subjects against Hungary .!* 
That Government had approved the March Laws which gave 
large powers to Hungary, and Hungary included Croatia, 
Slavonia, and other Slavic areas. The Hungarian Gov- 
ernment was entirely within its rights when it demanded 
that Jellachich be dismissed and that the agreement of March 
be loyally applied. But Austria had made those concessions 
only from compulsion. It saw now in Jellachich a means Austria 

of recalling them. But its own position was still too in- ^^^ °\ ^ ^ 

° . . -^ situation, 

secure to permit it to proceed openly and aboveboard 

to that direct end. The policy that it followed was most 
tortuous, — now apparently conceding the Hungarian de- 
mands, at the same time not discrediting Jellachich. It 
would be impossible in our space to trace these manoeuvers 
in detail. Suffice it to say that conduct so uncandid in- 
creased daily the tension between Hungary and Austria, 
considered by Hungary responsible for the actions of Jella- 
chich. A change consequently occurred in the inner politics 
of Hungary, which was resolved to maintain itself against 
the rebellious Slavs and, if Austria supported them, against 



178 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



Eadical 
party in 
Hungary 
seizes 
control. 



Austria itself. The Hungarian ministry since March had 
been a moderate one, in favor of maintaining peace. It 
included all the more important Magyar statesmen. But 
the perilous position into which the Magyars were drifting 
naturally favored the more warlike and revolutionary leaders 
who embodied the passionate hatred of the Slavs and Austrians. 
Peaceful negotiation between the various parties to the con- 
flict failed, and in September 1848 matters were precipitated 
by Jellachich, who began a civil war by leading an army 
of Croatians and Serbs against the Magyars. The effect 
of this action was to arouse the Magyars to a fever heat, 
and to play directly into the hands of the aggressive war 
party. Kossuth and the extreme radicals now came into 
power. Those who stood for peaceful relations with Austria, 
like Deak, gave up in despair. The Austrian Government 
finally assumed the aggressive. On October 3d the Emperor 
declared the Hungarian Diet dissolved. At the same time 
Jellachich, so odious to all Magyars, was given the command 
of all the imperial troops in Hungary. The immediate 
effect, however, of this action was not what had been in- 
tended, but was rather another outbreak in Vienna itself. 
There the revolutionists, sympathizing with the Magyars, 
rose and actually controlled the city for several weeks. The 
Emperor fled to Olmiitz. But now the army appeared upon 
the scene. Windischgratz, recalled from Prague, besieged 
Vienna for five days, finally forcing its surrender October 
31, 1848. Austria had won her third victory; for in Bo- 
hemia, in Italy, and now in Vienna the army had intervened 
with decisive effect and had either crushed or checked the 
revolutionary parties, and had won back for the Government 
some of the ground lost in March. 

The reactionary party in Austria now became stronger 
and more determined to finish with this ubiquitous revolution. 
It forced the Emperor Ferdinand to abdicate. He was suc- 
ceeded December 2, 1848, by his nephew, Francis Joseph I, 
a lad of eighteen, who is still the Emperor of Austria (1909). 



WAR BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 179 

The purpose of this manoeuver was to permit by a show Abdication 

of legality the abrogation of the March Laws i.i Hungary. 

. "^ . . . . Emperor of 

Promises made by Ferdniand, it was held, were not binding Austria. 

upon his successor, and the promises of March were hence- Accession 
forth to be repudiated. Schwarzenberg, one of the most °^ Francis 
reckless, daring, and autocratic ministers of the nineteenth 
century, now became the real leader of the Government. 
The Austrian ministry, at last confident of its power, re- 
tracted the March Laws and prepared to subdue Hungary 
as it had subdued Bohemia and Vienna. Hungary stiffened 
for the coming conflict. She declared Francis Joseph a Hungary 
usurper. Only that person was King of Hungary who had 
been crowned in Hungary with the crown of St. Stephen. Joseph a 
She therefore refused to recognize the new ruler until he usurper, 
should be crowned and take the oath to the constitution, 
and she held that Ferdinand was still King, and prepared 
to fight in his defense and that of the March Laws which 
he had sanctioned. 

Thus it came about that the year 1849 saw a great war War 

in Hungary. Austrian armies were sent into that country "6*"^^^^ 

Austria and 
from various directions. The ungenerous conduct of the Hungary 

Magyars toward the other races in Hungary was now given 
its reward. Not only did the Hungarian armies have to 
face Austrian troops, flushed with victory, but in the south 
the Serbs were in full revolt, in the east the Roumanian 
peasantry favored the Austrians, in the south and south- 
west the Croatians and Slavonians under Jellachich 
were eager for revenge. The result was that the Hungarian 
armies in the period from January to March 1849 were in 
the main unsuccessful. In April, however, they gained several 
victories and drove back the Austrians. Then, in a frenzy 
of excitement, the Hungarian radicals, led by Kossuth, in- Hungarian 
duced the Diet to take the momentous step of declaring that Declaration 
the House of Hapsburg, as false and perjured, had ceased °^ lude- 
to rule, and that Hungary was an independent nation. Kos- ^-j.^^ 14 
suth was appointed President of the indivisible state of Hun- 1849. 



180 CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 

gary. While the word republic was not uttered, such would 
probably be the future form of government if the Hungarians 
succeeded in achieving their independence. The Hungarian 
victories still continued for a while, but the action of the 
Diet in declaring independence altered the situation disas- 
trously. The matter became international. Foreign inter- 
vention brought this turbulent chapter abruptly to a close. 
The young Francis Joseph I made an appeal for aid to 
the Tsar of Russia. Nicholas I showed the greatest alacrity 
in responding. The reasons that determined him were vari- 
ous. He was both by temperament and conviction predis- 
posed to aid his fellow-sovereigns against revolutionary 
movements if asked. He was an autocrat and interested in 
the preservation of autocracy wherever it existed. Also 
he had no desire to see a great republic on his very borders. 
Furthermore, a successful Hungary might make a restless 
Poland. Many Poles were fighting in the Hungarian armies. 
Hungary Russian troops, variously estimated at from 100,000 to 

conquere . 200,000, now poured into Hungary from the east and north. 
The Austrians again advanced from the west. The Hun- 
garians fought brilliantly and recklessly, urged on by the 
eloquence of Kossuth. They sought the aid of the Turks 
but did not receive it. They even appealed to the Slavs, 
promising them in adversity the rights they had refused 
in prosperity, but in vain. The overwhelming numbers of 
their opponents rendered the struggle hopeless. Kossuth 
resigned in favor of Gorgei, a leading general. The latter 
was forced to capitulate at Vilagos, August 13, 1849. The 
war of Hungarian Independence was over. Kossuth and 
others fled to Turkey, where they were given refuge. Nich- 
olas proudly handed over to Francis Joseph his troublesome 
Hungary, which Austria, if left to her own resources, would 
probably have been unable to conquer. The punishment 
meted out to the Hungarians had no quality of mercy in it. 
Many generals and civilians were hanged. The constitutional 
privileges were entirely abolished. Hungary became a mere 



AUSTRIA DEFEATS PIEDMONT 181 

province of Austria, and was crushed beneath the iron heel. 

The catastrophe of 1849 seemed the complete annihilation 

of that country. 

Meanwhile Italy also had been reconquered by the revived The 

military power of Austria. The armistice concluded in ^°^*l^®^ 

*' ^ , ^ Italy com- 

August 1848 between Austria and Piedmont, after the battle pieted. 
of Custozza, lasted seven months, during which time diplo- 
macy was vainly attempting to effect a peace. Austria 
crushed Lombardy as never before beneath a harsh military 
rule. Charles Albert considered himself now so deeply 
pledged to deliver Italy that he resolved to reopen the war 
and did so in the spring of 1849. But his chances were 
much poorer than in 1848. During those months absolutism 
in its severest form had been restored in Naples, and Naples 
consequently would send no aid ; also the Pope had fled from 
Rome, his prime minister, Rossi, having been murdered, and 
had gone to Naples as the guest of Ferdinand. Rome had 
been declared a republic, with Mazzini as one of the Trium- 
virs, as the executive was called. Tuscany, also, had been 
declared a republic, the Grand Duke having likewise taken 
refuge with Ferdinand of Naples. Tuscany and Rome were 
consequently involved in such internal complications that 
they could not be counted on in a renewal of the war. More- 
over, there was little sympathy between the republicans of 
these states and the monarchists of Piedmont, for one of 
the causes here, as everywhere, of Austrian success lay in 
the fact that the revolutionists were divided among them- 
selves. When Charles Albert took the field, therefore, in Abdication 
1849 he took it alone. No help came from the states to °^ 
the south. The result was not long doubtful. At Novara, ^lYtext 
March 23, 1849, the Sardinian army was utterly overthrown. 
The King himself sought death on the battlefield, but in 
vain. " Even death has cast me off," he said. Believing 
that better terms could be made for his country if another 
sovereign were on the throne, he abdicated in favor of his 
son, Victor Emmanuel II, whose reign, begun in the darkest 



18S 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



Overthrow 
of the 
Boman 
Eepuhlic. 



Fall of 
Venice. 



adversity, was destined to be glorious. Passing into exile, 
Charles Albert died a few months later. He had rendered, 
however, a great service to his house and to Italy, for he 
had shown that there was one Italian prince who was willing 
to risk everything for the national cause. He had enlisted 
the interest and the faith of the Italians in the Government 
of Piedmont, in the House of Savoy. He was looked upon as 
a martyr to the national cause. 

The battle of Novara was followed shortly by the over- 
throw of the Florentine Republic and the restoration of the 
grand duke of Tuscany. But the restoration of the Pope 
and the extinction of the Roman Republic was a more 
difficult task. That republic, under the leadership of Maz- 
zini, was becoming popular with the former subjects of the 
Pope, and would no doubt have lived had foreign powers 
been willing to let it alone. But they were not. France, believ- 
ing that Austria would intervene if she did not, and wishing 
to assert something like a balance of power in the peninsula, 
decided to send an expedition to restore the Pope, but at 
the same time to preserve the free institutions that had re- 
cently been won by the Romans. The president of the re- 
public, Louis Bonaparte, favored this for personal reasons. 
He wished to win the favor of the Catholics and conserva- 
tives of France. And thus France, pledged by its very con- 
stitution " never to employ its forces against the liberties of 
another people," went to work to destroy a sister republic. 
It should be said that the true Republicans in France strove 
to prevent the Government from embarking upon this policy, 
but in vain. At first the French were repulsed, but then, re- 
inforced and far superior to the Romans, they began a siege 
of the city which lasted about three weeks, ending in its cap- 
ture June 30, 1849. 

With the fall of Venice before the Austrians in August 
1849 this chapter of Italian history closes. The hopes 
of 1848 had withered fast. A cruel reaction now held sway 
throughout most of the peninsula. The power of Austria 



THE PARLIAMENT OF FRANKFORT 183 

was restored, greater apparently than ever. Piedmont alone 
preserved a real independence, but Piedmont was for the 
time being crushed beneath the burdens of a disastrous war 
and a humiliating peace. 

Meanwhile the victories of the Liberals in Germany were The Par- 
being succeeded by defeats. There hope had centered in Ji^"^*^„ f 
the deliberations of the Parliament of Frankfort, consisting 
of nearly six hundred representatives, elected by universal 
suffrage. The assembly was composed of many able men, 
but it possessed only a moral authority. Though its exist- 
ence had not been prevented by the rulers of the various 
states, because they had not dared to oppose what the people 
so plainly desired, still those rulers gave it no positive sup- 
port and played a waiting game, hoping to be able to pre- 
vent the execution of any decisions unfavorable to them- 
selves. The assembly aspired to give unity and a constitu- 
tion to Germany. But having no draft ready to discuss, 
much time was lost. Debates on rather abstract questions, 
too, which might better have been postponed, consumed many 
weeks, during which the old order was beginning to win back 
its old position, particularly in Austria. Gradually, how- 
ever, the Constitution was elaborated. It reduced con- 
siderably the powers of the several rulers and created a 
fairly strong federal state. Two most thorny questions 
long baffled the assembly: what territory should be included 
in the new Germany, and who should be its head.'' The 
difficulties were extreme in either case. They lay in the 
fact that there were two great powers, Austria and Prussia, 
the fundamental fact, as we have seen, of the historical evolu- 
tion of Germany. Any decision of either question would The 
probably offend one or the other. Austria was the chief ^o^**!^^ 
problem. Should she be admitted into the new union? If 
so, wholly or only in part.'* If wholly, that would mean 
that millions of Italians, Croatians, Hungarians, Poles, 
Roumanians would come in, would participate in the making 
of the laws. It would mean, too, that the new central par- 



184. 



CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 



liament would have to legislate for a most motley aggregation 
of peoples. Moreover, the empire thus created would be 
no Germany, but a nondescript. Austria, largely non- 
German, had a population of 38,000,000. The rest of 
Germany would number only about 32,000,000. Austria 
would, therefore, have an absolute majority in the parlia- 
ment, and the actions of that majority might be determined 
by the desires of Hungarians and Slavs. Obviously such 
an unity would be a mockery. Moreover, to permit such 
dissimilar elements to live together the loosest confederation 
would be necessary, and Germans were tired of loose con- 
federations. On the other hand, to admit only the German 
provinces of Austria would be to break up the unity of 
Austria, and to this the Austrian Government objected. It 
was finally decided, however, to include those provinces only. 
The boundaries of the new union were to be the same as those 
of the German Confederation. 

The other most important question was what should be 
the form of the new government, and who should be the 
executive.? Should there be an emperor or a president or 
a board, and, if an emperor, should his office be hereditary, 
or for life, or for a term of years.? Should he be the 
ruler of Prussia or of Austria, or should first one and then 
the other rule? The final decision was that Germany should 
be an hereditary empire, and on March 28, 1849, the King 
of Prussia was chosen to be its head. Austria announced 
curtly that it " would neither let itself be expelled from the 
German Confederation, nor let its German provinces be 
separated from the indivisible monarchy." 

The center of interest now shifted to Berlin, whither a 
delegation went to offer to Frederick William IV the imperial 
crown of a united Germany. Would he accept it? If he 
the King of should, the new scheme to which twenty-eight minor states 
Prussia. had already assented would go into force, though it might 
involve a war with Austria, by this time largely recovered 
from her various troubles. Frederick William had declared 



leadership 
in 

Germany 
offered to 



FAILURE OF THE FRANKFORT PARLIAMENT 185 

in 1847 that he was willing to settle the German question, 
" with Austria, without Austria, yes, if need be, against 
Austria." Now, however, he was in a very different mood. 
He declined the offer of the Frankfort Parliament. The 
reasons were varied. Austria protested that she would never 
accept a subordinate position, and this protest alarmed him. 
And he disliked the idea of receiving a crown from a revolu- 
tionary assembly; rather, in his opinion, ought such a gift 
to come from his equals, the princes of Germany. 

Thus the two great German powers, Austria and Prussia, Rejection 

rejected the work of the Frankfort Parliament. Rebuffed °^ *^® 

, 11. • work of the 

in such high quarters, that body was unable to impose its work prankfort 

upon Germany, and it finally ended its existence wretchedly. Parliament. 

In session for over a year it accomplished nothing. But the 

responsibility for the failure of Germans to achieve a real 

unity in 1848 and 1849 rests primarily not with it, but with 

Prussia and Austria. Its failure, however, and its mistakes 

probably made it easier for the next generation to solve 

the problem. 

The King of Prussia now attempted to form a union along The 
his own royal lines. This brought him into conflict, how- " l^Tin^ilia- 
ever, with Austria in 1850, which peremptorily ordered him oimiitz " 
to abandon his schemes, which he forthwith did. This was 
the famous " humiliation of Oimiitz." Austria then de- 
manded that the old German Confederation of 1815, which 
had been suspended in 1848, be revived with its Diet at 
Frankfort. This was done in 1851. 

The permanent results of this mid-century uprising of Results of 
central Europe were very slight. Everywhere the old gov- ^^^ revolu- 
ernments slipped back into the old grooves and resumed the 1348. 
old traditions. Two states, however, emerged with consti- 
tutions which they kept, Sardinia, whose Constitutional 
Statute granted by Charles Albert on March 4, 1848, estab- 
lished a real constitutional and parliamentary government, 
the only one in Italy, and Prussia, whose Constitution issued 
by the King in its final form in 1850 was far less liberal, yet 



186 CENTRAL EUROPE IN REVOLT 

sufficed to range Prussia among the constitutional states 
of Europe. By it the old absolutism of the state was 
changed, at least in form. There was henceforth a parlia- 
ment consisting of two chambers. In one respect this docu- 
ment was a bitter disappointment to all Liberals. In the 
March days of 1848 the King had promised universal suf- 
frage, but the Constitution as finally promulgated rendered 
it illusory. It established a system unique in the world. 
Universal suffrage was not withdrawn, but was marvelously 
manipulated. The voters were divided in each electoral 
district throughout Prussia into three classes, according to 
wealth. The amount of taxes paid by the district was 
divided into three equal parts. Those voters who paid the 
first third were grouped into one class, those, more numerous, 
who paid the second third into another class, those who 
paid the remainder into still another class. The result 
was that a few very rich men were set apart by themselves, 
the less rich by themselves, and the poor by themselves. 
Each of these three groups, voting separately, elected an 
equal number of delegates to a convention, which convention 
chose the delegates of that constituency to the lower house 
of the Prussian Parliament. Thus in every electoral as- 
sembly two-thirds of the members belonged to the wealthy 
class. There was no chance in such a system for the poor, for 
the masses. This system, established by the Constitution of 
1850, still exists in Prussia. It gives an enormous prepon- 
derance of political power to the rich. The first class con- 
sists of very few men, in some districts of only one; the second 
class is sometimes twenty times as numerous ; the third 
sometimes a hundred, or even a thousand times. Thus 
though every man twenty-five years of age has the suffrage, 
the vote of a single rich man may have as great weight as 
the votes of a thousand workingmen. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE SECOND REPUBLIC AND THE FOUNDING 
OF THE SECOND EMPIRE 

THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

The Revolution of 1848 in France was extraordinarily The French 
swift, entirely unexpected, and extremely radical. " Though l^evolution 
the February Revolution," says de Tocqueville, " was of all 
our revolutions the shortest and the least sanguinary, yet 
far more than any other it filled the minds and hearts of 
men with the idea and feeling of its omnipotence." Be- 
ginning as a moderate demand for a larger electorate, it 
soon passed far beyond this into the realm of the new and 
the uncertain. A revolution of three days, it was made 
without premeditation, without definite plan or accredited 
leaders. The day of the 24th of February was made memo- 
rable by events crowding upon each other with irresistible 
pressure. On the morning of that day there was no public 
demand for a republic ; by sunset a republic, the second 
in the history of France, had been proclaimed. This spec- 
tacular outcome was the one least imagined, as it had seemed 
for the past few years that the republican party which had 
so troubled Louis Philippe's early years as king was now 
moribund. Suddenly under the pressure of circumstances 
it awoke, and, though the party of a small Parisian minority, 
it won the triumphs of the day and established its regime. 

The Second Republic lasted nominally nearly five years, Stages in 
from February 24, 1848, to December 2, 1852, when the ^^''^^J'**"'^ 
Second Empire was proclaimed. Practically, however, as second 
we shall see, it came to an end one year earlier, December Republic. 
2, 1851. During this period the state was administered 

187 



188 



THE SECOND REPUBLIC 



Two ele- 
ments in 
the Provi- 
sional Gov- 
ernment. 



The 

Kepub- 

licans. 



The 
Socialists. 



successively by the Provisional Government, chosen on Feb- 
ruary 24th, and remaining in power for about ten weeks, then 
for about a year by the National Constituent Assembly, 
which framed the Constitution of the Republic, and then by 
the President and Legislative Assembly, created by this 
constitution. The history of the Republic was to be a very 
troubled one. 

The Provisional Government was from the first composed 
of two elements. The larger number, led by Lamartine, were 
simply Republicans, desirous of a republican form of gov- 
ernment in place of the monarchical. " I regard the repub- 
lican government," says Lamartine, " that is to say, the 
government of peoples by their own reason and their own 
will, as the sole aim and the sole end of the great civilizations, 
as the sole means of realizing the great general truths that 
a people desires to inaugurate in its laws. Other forms 
of government are states of tutelage, confessions of the 
eternal minority of peoples, imperfections in the sight of 
philosophy, humiliations in the sight of history." The 
other element of the Provisional Government was represented 
by Louis Blanc, Flocon, Marrast, men who believed in a 
republic, but as a means to an end, and that end a social, 
economic revolution ; men who wished primarily to improve 
the condition of the laboring classes, to work out in actual 
laws and institutions the socialistic theories propounded 
with such effectiveness during the later years of the reign 
of Louis Philippe, and particularly the principles repre- 
sented in Louis Blanc's famous phrase, " the right to labor." 
What these men most desired was not a mere political 
change, but a thoroughgoing reconstruction of society in 
the interest of the largest and weakest class, the poor, the 
wage-earners. Blanc's conception of the republic he thus 
expressed : " It has always been my opinion that the re- 
publican form of government is not the sole object to be 
aimed at, even by politicians of the republican school, if 
their love for the commonwealth be sincere and disinterested. 



LOUIS BLANC AND THE SOCIALISTS 189 

I believed then, as I. do now, that the chief end to be kept 

in view is to make him that works enjoy the fruits of his 

work; to restore to the dignity of human nature those whom 

the excess of poverty degrades ; to enlighten those whose 

intelligence, from want of education, is but a dim, vacillating 

lamp in the midst of darkness ; in one word, to enfranchise 

the people, by endeavoring to abolish this double slavery, 

ignorance and misery." ^ 

Blanc was a convinced Socialist, intelligent and thought- louis 

ful. The interests of the working classes constituted, in 

° . theories. 

his opinion, the supreme problem of government. He wished 

to replace private property by public property in the in- 
terest of the greater number. He would do this by co- 
operative societies. Production should not be carried on 
by capitalists, employing laborers for wages and retaining 
profits for themselves. The laborers should manage the 
various industries themselves, reaping whatever rewards 
there were. To start these co-operative societies the aid 
of the state, furnishing capital, would be necessary. But 
in the end, gradually and without violence, the whole proc- 
ess of production would be transferred from the control 
of the few to that of the many. 

A scheme so novel and so opposed to the habits and in- 
stitutions of the ages was bound to be misconceived and 
misrepresented. Believers in the existing order would de- 
nounce every economic change as robbery; believers in 
change would be more dominated by passion, by hatred 
of the rich, by a desire for a division of property, than 
by moderate or equitable plans of economic reform. 

The Provisional Government, divided as it was into So- Achieve- 
cialists and Anti-Socialists, ran the risk of all coalitions, "^^^*s of 
that of being reduced to impotence by internal dissensions, g^Qj^^j qq^_ 
as was to be immediately shown. Certain great reforms ernment, 
were, however, carried with practical unanimity. The death 

' Quotations are from Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern 
France, pp. 176, 178. 



190 THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

penalty for political offenses was abolished. Universal 
suffrage was proclaimed, and thus political power passed 
suddenly from the hands of about two hundred thousand 
privileged wealthy persons to over nine million electors. 
Negro slavery throughout the French colonies was abol- 
ished, as it had been in the first French Revolution. The 
freedom of the press was established, as were the freedom of 
public meeting and association and the right of all citizens to 
become members of the National Guard. The results were 
almost instantaneous and completely changed the character 
of political life in Paris. Newspapers and party pamphlets, 
sold cheaply, appeared in profusion, expressing the most 
varied and in many cases most radical ideas, and influencing 
far greater numbers than the French press had previously 
done. Political clubs, similar to those of the Revolution, 
were opened and formed additional clearing-houses for 
opinion and debate, and the National Guard rose in a few 
weeks from 50,000 to about 200,000. In other words, the 
masses of Parisian workmen now had weapons in the hand, 
as members of the Guard, and means of self-expression and 
propaganda in clubs and newspapers. 
The Conflicts between the two great currents of opinion began 

+T?^ fl °" °^ ^^^ very day of the proclamation of the Republic. Armed 
workmen came in immense numbers to the Hotel de Ville 
and demanded that henceforth the banner of France should 
be the red flag, emblem of Socialism. Lamartine repelled 
this demand in a brilliant speech. " You desire," he said, 
" to replace a revolution marked by unanimity and frater- 
nity with one of revenge and suffering. You demand that 
the Government raise as a sign of peace the standard of 
war to the bitter end among citizens of the same country. 
Never will I sign such a decree. I will repel to the last 
moment of my life this bloody flag, and you ought to reject 
it more than I, for the red flag has never been borne else- 
where than around the Champ-de-Mars, imbrued with the 
blood of the people in 1791 and 1793, while the tricolor has 



THE LABOR COMMISSION 191 

made the circuit of the world with the name, the glory, and 
the hberty of France." Lamartine's eloqu-ence was over- 
whelming. The workmen themselves stamped upon the red 
flag. 

But the Government, achieving an oratorical victory, saw 
itself forced to yield to the socialist party in two important 
respects. On motion of Louis Blanc, it recognized the 
so-called " right to labor." It promised work to all citi- 
zens, and as a means to this end it established, against its 
own real wishes, the famous National Workshops. Blanc 
demanded that a Ministry of Progress be established, to 
organize co-operative associations of the kind which he had 
advocated. But, instead, the Government established a Labor The Labor 
Commission, with Blanc at its head and with its place of Commission, 
meeting the Luxembourg Palace. This was a mere debat 
mg society, a body to investigate economic questions and 
report to the Government. It had no power of action, 
or of putting its opinions into execution. Moreover, by re- 
moving Louis Blanc from the Hotel de Ville to another 
part of Paris, the Government really reduced his influence 
and that of liis party. Yet tliis Labor Commission, thus 
lamed at the start, set loyally to work. It was composed 
of delegates of workingmen representing diff'erent crafts, 
of political economists, and even of employers. Declaring 
that " manual labor too prolonged ruins the health of the 
laborer, and by preventing the cultivation of his mind, under- 
mines the dignity of man," it demanded the reduction of 
the working day from eleven to ten hours in Paris, and 
from twelve to eleven throughout the country. The Pro- 
visional Government then decreed this change, but the de- 
cree remained a dead letter, as employers ignored it. The 
Commission persuaded the Government to abolish the 
" sweating " system. It also acted as a court of arbitra- 
tion in certain labor disputes with some measure of success. 
But as time wore on it became irritated over its general 
lack of achievement, which contrasted so lamentably with 



192 THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

Its the endless hopes it had aroused. The irritation constantly 

"QP e . jgepened, and the Commission became in the end a center of 

much inflammatory talk. Looked to for leadership by tens 

of thousands of workmen, it was a source of danger to the 

Government. Deprived of all modes of legal action, it might 

become the seat of conspiracies and illegal proceedings. 

The The National Workshops, too, were a source of ultimate 

National disappointment to those who had looked to them to solve 
Workshops. 

the complex labor problems of the modern industrial system. 

Conceded by the Provisional Government against its will, and 
to gain time, that Government did not intend, that they should 
succeed. Their creation was intrusted to the Minister of 
Commerce, Marie, a personal enemy of Louis Blanc, who, 
according to his own admission, was willing to make this 
experiment in order to render the latter unpopular and 
to show workingmen the fallacy of his theories of pro- 
duction, and the dangers of such theories for themselves. 
The scheme was represented as Louis Blanc's, though it 
was denounced by him, was established especially to dis- 
credit him, and was a veritable travesty of his ideas. 
Blanc wished to have every man practise his own trade in 
real factories, started by State aid. They should be en- 
gaged in productive enterprises ; moreover, only men of 
good character should be permitted to join these associa- 
tions. Instead of this, the Government simply set men of 
the most varied sorts — cobblers, carpenters, metal workers, 
masons, to labor upon unproductive tasks, such as making 
excavations for public works. They were organized in a 
military fashion, and the wages were uniform, two francs 
a day. 
Their rapid It was properly no system of production that was being 
growth. tried, but a system of relief for the unemployed, who were 
very numerous owing to the fact that many factories had 
had to close because of the general disturbed state of affairs. 
The number of men flocking to these National Workshops 
increased alarmingly : 25,000 in the middle of March ; 66,000 



THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY 193 

in the middle of April; over 100,000 in May. As there 
was not work enough for all, the number of working days 
was reduced for each man to two a week, and his total 
wage for the week fixed at eight francs. The result was 
that large numbers of men were kept idle most of the time, 
were given wretched wages, and had plenty of time to dis- 
cuss their grievances. They furnished excellent material 
for socialist agitators. This experiment wasted the public 
money, accomplished nothing useful, and led to a street 
war of the most appalling kind. 

The Provisional Government was, as the name signified, The 

1, •i.' i,ji 1. J • • National 

only a temporary organization whose duty was to admmis- 

ter the state until an assembly should be elected by the Assembly, 
new universal suffrage, which assembly should then frame 
a Constitution. The elections were held April 23d, and the 
National Constituent Assembly met on May 4, 1848. The 
assembly consisted of nine hundred men, about eight hun- 
dred of them moderate Republicans. The Socialists had 
almost disappeared. 

The Assembly showed at once that it was bitterly opposed The 

to the opinions of the Socialists of Paris. The Provisional ^^^^ ^ 

hostile 
Government now laid down its powers, and the Assembly ^q ^he 

chose five of its members, all Anti-Socialists, with Lamartine Socialists. 
as the head, as the new executive until the Constitution should 
be drawn up. All these men had been opposed to Louis 
Blanc. The Assembly also refused to create the Ministry 
of Labor demanded by the latter. The workingmen of Paris, 
irritated at this refusal and at the outcome of the elections, 
and seeing that they had nothing to hope for from this 
Assembly, rose in insurrection, endeavoring to accomplish 
a new revolution which should bring in the socialistic state 
as that of February had brought in the republican demo- 
cratic. On May 15th they invaded the Chamber, drove out 
the representatives, and declared the Assembly dissolved 
and proclaimed a new Provisional Government of their own. 
But their victory was short-lived. The National Guard 



194 THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

came to the rescue of the Assembly, and some of the leaders 
of the" insurgents were made prisoners. 
Abolition The Assembly, irritated in turn by the humiHation to 

N tonal which it had been subjected, resolved to root out the great 
Workshops, source of danger, the National Workshops. The Govern- 
ment announced their immediate abolition, giving the work- 
men the alternative of enrolling in the army or going into 
the country to labor on public works. If they did not 
leave voluntarily, they would be forced to leave. The laborers, 
goaded to desperation, prepared to resist and to overthrow 
this Government which they had helped bring into existence, 
and which had proved so unsympathetic. Organized as a 
semi-military force, angered at the hostility of the bourgeois 
to all helpful social reform that could make their lives easier, 
they began a bitter fight. The Assembly saw the terrible 
nature of the conflict impending. General Cavaignac wa& 
given dictatorial powers by the Assembly, the executive com- 
The June mission of five resigning. During four June days (June 
Days. 23-26, 1848) the most fearful street fighting Paris had ever 

known went on behind a baffling network of barricades. The 
issue was long doubtful, but finally the insurgents were put 
down. The cost was terrible. Ten thousand were killed or 
wounded. Eleven thousand prisoners were taken, and their 
deportation was immediately decreed by the Assembly. 
The June Days left among the poor an enduring legacy 
of hatred toward the bourgeoisie. 
A military 'pj^g republic of order had definitely triumphed over the 
, . socialistic agitation. But so narrow had been its escape, 

so fearful was it with anxiety for the future that the dic- 
tatorship of Cavaignac was continued until the end of Octo- 
ber. Thus the Second Republic, proclaimed in February 
1848, after ten troubled weeks under a Provisional Govern- 
ment, passed under military leadership for the next four 
months. One-man power was rapidly emerging. 

The results of this socialist agitation and of the sangui- 
nary days of June were lamentable and far-reaching. They 



UNPOPULARITY OF THE REPUBLIC 195 

greatly contributed to the overthrow of the Republic. Many 
of the bourgeois had during these months experienced the 
most acute financial distress. Many manufacturers and 
merchants were ruined by the economic crisis created by the 
disturbed state of affairs. Bonds depreciated in two months Growing 
from 116 francs to 50, with the result that the income of opposition 
those depending upon them was suddenly cut in two. These Republic, 
people became enemies to the Republic, because they wished 
above everything a government of order, under which alone 
business could flourish and property be secure. This class 
was very influential. 

The peasants also turned against the Republic. They 
were told that the Socialists were going to take their lands 
from them and divide them. They were as strongly 
attached to the principle of private property as were the 
rich, and for the same reason desired a government of order. 
But more important, because alienating the peasants from 
the Republic, was the action of the Provisional Government 
in levying a new tax. 

The financial situation of France at the close of the July 
Monarchy was unsatisfactory, and was rendered worse by 
the Revolution, which caused widespread business uncer- 
tainty, undermined credit, and made the collection of taxes 
difficult. Bankruptcy was not to be thought of, as the 
Government did not wish to have the Second Republic mean, 
in the opinion of mankind, the repudiation of debts, as had 
the First. On the other hand, no new loan could be raised. 
The Government, therefore, did the only thing it could do ; An 
it increased the direct taxes by almost one-half (forty-five ^^PoP^^^^r 
centimes supplementary to each franc hitherto paid). This me^a^ure. 
fell not only upon the middle class, but also upon the peas- 
ants. Nothing could have been more disastrous for the 
Republic, which thus lost its popularity with the most numer- 
ous class. If the Republic meant increased taxes, it was, 
in their opinion, inferior to monarchy. The effect of this 
tax was shown more clearly later. It had had but a small 



196 



THE SECOND REPUBLIC 



The 

framing of 
the Consti- 
tution. 



The powers 
of the 
executive. 



Discussion 
concerning 
the presi- 
dency. 



influence upon the elections for the Constituent Assembly, 
not being widely known. 

After the suppression of the Socialists in June the As- 
sembly proceeded to frame the Constitution, for which task 
it had been chosen. It proclaimed the Republic as the 
definitive government of France. It declared universal suf- 
frage. It provided that there should be a legislature con- 
sisting of a single chamber. A second chamber seemed 
aristocratic, and, moreover, likely to be a check upon the 
first, that is, upon the people seeking to legislate, and 
therefore was rejected. The Assembly was to consist of 
750 members, chosen for three years, to be renewed in full 
at the end of that period. 

The executive was to be a President of the Republic elected 
for four years and ineligible for re-election save after a 
four years' interval. He was given very considerable pow- 
ers. It was felt that the danger in giving him these would 
be neutralized by the shortness of his term and by his inability 
to be immediately re-elected. He was given the right to 
propose legislation to the Assembly, to " dispose of the armed 
force," to negotiate and ratify treaties, though these should 
become binding only when sanctioned by the Assembly, to 
appoint and dismiss ministers and other officials, civil and 
military. The President therefore was to be a person of 
power. How he should be chosen was the most important ques- 
tion before the Constituent Assembly, and was long debated. 
The Assembly, dominated by its fundamental dogma of uni- 
versal suffrage and popular sovereignty, was disposed to 
have the President chosen by all the voters. The danger 
in this procedure lay in the lack of political experience of 
the French electorate, and the probability that they would 
be blinded by some distinguished or famous name in making 
their choice, not guided by an intelligent analysis of char- 
acter and of fitness for the high office. Moreover, if the 
people should choose both the legislature and the President, 
they would create two co-ordinate authorities, likely to dis- 



MODE OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT 197 

agree, and in that case with the chance of victory resting 
with the President, a single individual, knowing his own 
mind, acting directly and swiftly, rather than with the 
legislature divided into parties, and necessarily acting 
slowly. This likelihood that the President, wielding the 
military and civil power, might overturn the Republic and 
make himself a despot, was distinctly foreseen by some mem- 
bers, who explicitly warned the Assembly against it, notably 
by Jules Grevy, later a President of the Third Republic, 
who urged that the President be chosen by the legislature 
and that he be removable at any time by it. Thus Par- 
hament would be the supreme body in the state, not simply 
a co-ordinate and rival power, and presidential usur- The 
pations would be impossible. " Are you quite sure," said ^^^^i^^ent 
Grevy, " that in that series of men who are to succeed each chosen by 
other every four years to the presidential throne, there will universal 
be only devoted republicans anxious to descend from it? suffrage. 
Are you sure that there will never be any one sufficiently 
ambitious to try to perpetuate his power? . . . And if this 
man is a member of one of those families which have ruled 
over France, if he has never expressly renounced what he 
calls his rights, if commerce is languishing, if the people 
are suffering, if they are passing through one of those crises 
in which misery and deception deliver them over to those who 
conceal by promises their projects against liberty; will you 
guarantee that this man of ambition will not succeed in over- 
throwing the Republic?" Events were shortly to prove 
Grevy's clear right to the title of prophet, but his proposi- 
tion was now voted down overwhelmingly. " Something 
must be left to Providence," answered Lamartine. Another 
amendment was suggested that at least no member of any 
of the famihes which had ruled France should ever be 
chosen President. This, too, for doctrinaire reasons, and 
because it seemed to limit the national sovereignty, was 
voted down, and it was definitely decided that the people 
should choose the President and should be entirely 



198 



THE SECOND REPUBLIC 



The voters 
to be un- 
trammeled 
in their 
choice. 



lOTliS 

Napoleon 

Bonaparte's 

opportunity. 



untrammeled in their choice. Thus in the very act of 
drawing up a Constitution for the Second Republic, 
the Assembly rendered easy, if not inevitable, its over- 
throw. 

Though the Republicans of 1848 committed many grave 
errors, owing partially to their inexperience, partially to 
their indisposition to abate any of their traditional political 
principles in the face of the extraordinary exigencies of 
a tumultuous and turbulent year, yet their work had certain 
consequences destined to survive. For fifty years the Re- 
public had been associated in the minds of multitudes of 
Frenchmen with the Reign of Terror, had signified violence, 
disorder, and confiscation of property. It now became evident 
that it might mean something very different, for here was a 
Republic which suppressed insurrection and restored order 
with a resolution and thoroughness that the monarchy had 
not shown under Charles X or Louis Philippe, one, more- 
over, which preferred unpopularity to bankruptcy. The 
June Days and the tax of the forty-five centimes were direct 
causes of its downfall. Yet by them the Republic as an ideal 
of government ultimately gained strength, though the present 
experiment proved ephemeral and weak. 

For, in leaving the choice of the President to universal 
suffrage, this republican assembly was playing directly into 
the hands of a pretender to a throne, of a man who believed 
he had the right to rule France by reason of his birth, Louis 
Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the Great Napoleon and 
legitimate heir to his pretensions. At the time of the Feb- 
ruary Revolution this man was practically without influence 
or significance, but so swiftly did events move and opinion 
shift in that year 1848 that by the time the mode of choos- 
ing the President was decided upon, he was already known 
to be a leading candidate, a fact that stamped that decision 
as all the more foolhardy. 

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte had become chief of the house 
of Bonaparte in 1832 at the age of twenty-four. He con- 



LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 199 

ceived his position with utmost seriousness. He believed His 

that he had a right to rule over France, and that the day P^®^°^^ 

=• . . career, 

would come when he would. He adhered to this belief for 

sixteen years, though those years brought him no practical 
encouragement, but only the reverse. Gathering about him 
a few adventurers, he attempted in 1836, at Strasburg, and 
in 1840 at Boulogne, to seize power. Both attempts, already 
described, were puerile in their conception, and were bun- 
glingly executed. Both ended in fiasco. He had gained the 
name of being ridiculous, a thing exceedingly difficult for 
Frenchmen to forgive or forget. As a result of the former 
attempt he had been exiled to the United States, from which 
he shortly returned. As a result of the latter he was im- 
prisoned in the fortress of Ham in northern France, from 
which he escaped in 1846, disguised as an ordinary mason, 
named Badinguet. He then went to England and in 
1848, at the time of the Chartist risings, he was a 
special constable stationed in Trafalgar Square. This 
was certainly no record of achievement. But the stars 
in their courses were fighting for him. The Revolution 
of 1848 created his opportunity, as that of 1789 had 
created that of the First Napoleon. Like his great pro- 
totype, whom he constantly sought to imitate, he offered 
his services to the Republic. He was elected a member of A member 
the Constituent Assembly, where the impression he created ° ? 
was that of a mediocre man, with few ideas of his own, who Assembly, 
could probably be controlled by others. His name, how- 
ever, was a name to conjure with. This was his only capital, 
but it was sufficient. The word Napoleon was seen to be 
a marvelous vote-winner with the peasants, who, now that 
universal suffrage was the law of the land, formed the great 
majority. " How should I not vote for this gentleman," 
said a peasant to Montalembert, " I whose nose was frozen 
at Moscow.? " Louis Napoleon was an avowed candidate ^ candidate 
for the presidency, and, as the most colorless, was the stron- j...-^ 
gest. Cavaignac was the candidate of the democratic Re- 



200 



THE SECOND REPUBLIC 



publicans, who had governed France since February, but 
he was not popular, and, moreover, he was hated by the 
workingmen for his part in the June Days. Ledru-Rollin 
was the candidate of the Socialists, an aggressive party, but 
made odious to law-abiding citizens by the events of the 
year, and always in the great minority. Lamartine was 
also a candidate. His sun had mounted swiftly to full 
meridian splendor in February, but was as swiftly paling. 
Moreover, the parties opposed to the very idea of a republic 
now rallied about Louis Napoleon — the Legitimists and the 
Orleanists, as they preferred even an Empire to a Republic, 
an unknown man who seemed pliable to a man known for 
firmness, rigidity, and strenuous republicanism, as was Ca- 
vaignac. Moreover, the enigmatic candidate was most pro- 
fuse in pleasing promises to various groups. There were 

Causes of other causes for Louis Napoleon's overwhelming triumph. 

his triumph The Republic had been proclaimed by a faction in Paris, and 
had never been formally approved b^^ France. It was as- 
sociated in the minds of men with grave uncertainty as 
to rights, of property, rights to which the French have 
always held tenaciously. Louis Napoleon, by his profes- 
sions and his family traditions, seemed to stand for order 
and stability. Again, for many years a series of brilliant 
writers had been portraying in history and in poetry the 
wonders of the Napoleonic era. Men's actual knowledge 
of the evils and oppressions of that era was growing less 
as the older generation, which could have told the true tale, 
was disappearing, and a new Napoleonic legend, fair, thril- 
ling, and altogether admirable had grown up. It mattered 
little that this legend was vitiated through and through 
by mendacity and distortion of history. 

For these reasons, when the presidential election of De- 
cember 1848 occurred, Louis Napoleon was found to be 
overwhelmingly the elect of the people. He had over 5,400,- 
000 votes, while Cavaignac, his nearest competitor, had less 
than 1,500,000, Ledru-Rollin 370,000, and Lamartine less 



Louis 

Napoleon 

elected 

President 

Dec. 10, 

1848. 



THE PRESIDENT AND THE ASSEMBLIES 201 

than 18,000. The new President entered upon his duties 
December 20, 1848. On that day before the Assembly he 
swore " to remain faithful to the democratic republic," and 
said : " My duty is clear. I will fulfil it as a man of honor. 
I shall regard as enemies of the country all those who en- 
deavor to change by illegal means that which France has 
established." 

The French had thus selected a Prince as President, an '^^^ 
innovation in the art of government. In the following May . , , 
they did an equally astonishing thing in the election of 
a Legislative Assembly. This Assembly of 750 members con- 
tained about 500 Monarchists, who were divided into Legiti- 
mists, Orleanists, and a few Bonapartists ; about 70 mod- 
erate Republicans of the kind that had thus far controlled 
the Republic, and about 180 Socialists. Thus the first 
legislature elected under the new Constitution of the Republic 
was overwhelmingly monarchical. Only 70 could be held 
to be sincerely attached to the present form of government. 
The explanation of this remarkable result lies in the fact 
that the Days of June were still very vivid in men's minds. 
The mass of Frenchmen voted for monarchical candidates 
because they believed that the Republic was dangerous to 
order and property. 

Thus both the President and the majority of the Assembly President 

Avere, by reason of their very being, enemies of the Con- ^"* Assem- 

.-. ,• , 1 • 1 1 11 mi • . ^ly opposed 

stitution under which they were elected. The situation was ^^ ^j^g q^j^. 

one that could not permanently endure. The three years stitution. 

that elapsed between the inauguration of the President and 

the coup d'etat of 1851, which virtually ushered in the 

Empire, though it was not formally proclaimed until a year 

later, were a period not of legislative and social reform, 

but of adroit and tortuous factional politics, played not for 

the advancement of France, but for the advantage of party. 

Not particularly instructive, a brief treatment of them will 

suffice. 

At first the President and the monarchical majority co- 



202 



THE SECOND REPUBLIC 



They com- 
bine to 
crush the 
Repub- 
licans. 



The 

Franchise 
law of 
1850. 



operated against the republican party, which each felt to 
be the real enemy. Opportunities for doing this were not 
slow in presenting themselves. Some of the Republicans 
unwisely attempted an insurrection against the Government, 
June 13, 1849. This was easily put down. Following up 
their victory, the authorities proceeded to cripple the Oppo- 
sition severely. Thirty-three of their representatives were 
arrested and deprived of their seats in the Legislative As- 
sembly. Their journals were suppressed. Public meetings 
were forbidden for a year, an order renewed several times 
later. As school-teachers had been effective friends of 
the Republic all over France, education was largely reorgan- 
ized with a view of bringing it more closely under the control 
of the clergy, friends of monarchy. Paris was declared 
under martial law, which gave greater actual power than ever 
to the President. 

This removal of the republican leaders rendered easy the 
passage of further repressive legislation. The Assembly 
next enacted the Franchise Law of 1850. This provided 
that to be a voter one must have resided in a given commune 
for three years, and that that fact must be proved by the 
presence of one's name on the tax list. This law virtually 
abolished universal suffrage and re-established in a round- 
about way a property qualification. It deprived over three 
million workingmen, one-third of the electorate, of the suf- 
frage, either because they paid no taxes or because to get 
work they had frequently to change their residence and 
could not, therefore, meet the three-year residence qualifica- 
tion. Those thus disfranchised, of course, bitterly hated 
the Assembly. Another law was then passed restricting 
the freedom of the press by re-establishing the requirement 
of a preliminary deposit of 50,000 francs from all editors. 
This stamped out of existence most of the cheap newspapers 
of the Republicans and Socialists, as they could not meet 
the qualification. 

Having silenced the Republicans, the victors. President 



THE COUP D'ETAT OF 1851 203 

and Assembly, fell to warring with each other. This con- President 
flict, showing itself in many minor matters, became most ,. 
pronounced and bitter over the question of a revision of vision of 
the Constitution. The Constitution forbade the re-election ^^^ Consti- 
of the President at the end of his four-year term. Louis 
Napoleon had no desire to retire to private life. He 
believed that if only this article were stricken out the 
immense majority of Frenchmen would re-elect him. He 
demanded that this clause be revised by the Assembly. 
The Assembly refused. The President was balked in 
his ambition of continuing in power by peaceful means. 
He now showed that he was ready to resort to any 
means to that end. He planned and carried out with 
extraordinary precision and success a remarkable coup 
d'etat. In order to discredit the Assembly with the people, 
he demanded that the law limiting the suffrage, which he 
himself had strongly urged, be repealed. This was refused, 
the Assembly not wishing to stultify itself so conspicuously. 
The President, with audacious duplicity, then posed as the 
guardian of the Constitution, as the representative of the 
principle of universal suffrage. He believed that the work- 
men would not intervene in behalf of the Assembly if he 
should attack it. 

For a successful coup d'etat secrecy was the absolute 
prerequisite, and never was secrecy better guarded. Pos- 
sessing the power of appointment to civil and military posi- 
tions, the President filled the more important ones with 
creatures of his own, who had everything to gain and little 
to lose from the overthrow of the existing system. Such were 
the Minister of War, who controlled the army ; the Minister 
of the Interior, who controlled the officials in the departments ; 
and the Prefect of Police, who controlled the police of Paris. 

The 2d of December, 1851, anniversary of the coronation The 
of Napoleon I and of the battle of Austerlitz, was chosen Coup d'etat, 
as the fateful day. During the early morning hours many 
of the military and civil leaders of France, republican and 



204 THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

monarchist, were arrested in bed and taken to prison. A 
battalion of infantry was sent to occupy the Legislative 
Chamber. Placards were posted on all the walls of Paris, 
pretending to explain the President's purposes. The As- 
sembly was pronounced dissolved, universal suffrage was de- 
clared re-established, the people were convoked in their pri- 
mary assemblies. The President explained that he must save 
the Republic from its enemies, the Monarchists and the An- 
archists, who put " in jeopardy the repose of France," that 
he made the people of France arbiter between the Assembly 
and himself, " by invoking the solemn judgment of the only 
sovereign that I recognize in France, the people." To 
accomplish the security the nation sorely needed after so 
much turmoil, he proposed the following changes in the con- 
stitution : the President should hold office for ten years ; 
ministers should be solely dependent upon him; there should 
be a council of state to prepare the laws and to discuss 
them before the legislative body ; a legislative body to discuss 
and vote the laws, elected by universal suffrage; another 
assembly, " composed of all the illustrious persons of the 
country," to be the " guardian of the fundamental compact," 
and of the public liberties. " This system, created by the 
First Consul at the beginning of the century, has already 
given to France repose and prosperity; it will guarantee 
them to her again." The people were called upon to ap- 
prove or disapprove these suggestions. 
Events of The significance of all this was at first not apparent to 

December those who read the placards. But signs of opposition 
began to show themselves as their meaning became clearer. 
Some of the deputies, going to their hall of meeting, 
found entrance prevented by the military. Withdraw- 
ing to another place, and proceeding to impeach the Presi- 
dent, they were attacked by the troops, who arrested a 
large number, and took them off to prison. Thus the lead- 
ers of France, civil and military, were in custody, and the 
President saw no organized authority erect before him. This 



LOUIS NAPOLEON BECOMES EMPEROR 205 

was the work of the 2d. Would the people resent the high- 
handed acts of this usurper? 

The President had not neglected to make unprecedented 
preparations for this contingency. His police controlled 
all the printing establishments, whence usually in periods of 
crisis emerged flaming appeals to revolt; also all the bell 
towers, whence in revolutionary times the tocsin was accus- 
tomed to ring out the appeal to insurrection. Nevertheless, 
on the 3d barricades were raised. On the 4th occurred ^^^ 

the famous " massacre of the boulevards." Over 150 were » ^. 

of the 

killed and a large number wounded. Paris was cowed. The boulevards." 
coup d'etat was crowned with success. To prevent any pos- 
sible rising of the provinces martial law was proclaimed in 
thirty-two departments, thousands of arbitrary arrests were 
made, and the work on which the Prince President entered 
on the night of December 2d was thoroughly carried out. 
Probably a hundred thousand arrests were made through- 
out France. All who appeared dangerous to Louis Na- 
poleon were either transported, exiled, or imprisoned. This 
vigorous policy was aimed particularly at the Republicans, 
who were for years completely silenced. 

Having thus abolished all opposing leadership, Louis Na- The 
poleon appealed to the people for their opinion as to in- ^ ^^" ^' 
trusting him with power to remodel the Constitution along 
the lines indicated in his proclamation. On December 20, 
7,439,216 voted in favor of so doing, and only 640,737 
voted in the negative. While the election was in no sense 
fair, while the issue presented was neither clear nor simple, 
while force and intimidation were resorted to, yet it was 
evident that a large majority of Frenchmen were willing 
to try again the experiment of a Napoleon. 

The Republic, though officially continuing another year, Napoleon 
was now dead. Louis Napoleon, though still nominally ' 

President, was m lact an absolute sovereign. It was a mere 2 i852 
detail when a year later (November 21, 1852) the people 
of France were permitted to vote on the question of re- 



206 THE SECOND REPUBLIC 

establishing the imperial dignity, and of proclaiming Louis 
Napoleon Bonaparte emperor, under the name of Napoleon 
III. 7,824,189 Frenchmen voted yes ; 253,145 voted no. On 
the anniversary of the coup d'etat, December 2d, a day so 
fortunate for Bonapartes, Napoleon III was proclaimed Em- 
peror of the French, and the Second Empire was established. 

THE SECOND EMPIRE 

The President who, by the endless witchery of a name, 
by a profitable absence of scruples, and by favorable circum- 
stances, had known how to become an Emperor, was no mere 
vulgar adventurer, but was a man of ideas as well as au- 
dacity, of generosity as well as egoism, of humanitarian 
aspirations for the betterment of the world, as well as of a 
vivid perception of the pleasures of personal advancement. 
His ideas, expounded gracefully in writings and in speeches, 
were largely derived from a study of the life of the Great 
Napoleon. Long before he became President of the Republic 
he published a book called " Napoleonic Ideas," an appraisal 
of the historic significance of the First Emperor. It appears 
from this that Napoleon I had two purposes in life. One 
was the preservation of all that was valuable in the Revolu- 
tion, the foundation of the state and of society upon a solid, 
enduring basis — which could only be accomplished by the 
exercise of absolute power on the part of the ruler — and 
the other was that this great end having been attained, the 
preliminary, probationary period of despotism would give 
way, and the edifice would then be " crowned with liberty," 
which it were unsafe earlier to bestow — that through the 
training received from an active and intelligent despot France 
would be fitted to enter upon the life of freedom, which 
appears to be the goal as well as the dream of modem 
times. 

That the latter part of Napoleon's plans, the bestowal 
of free institutions upon France, had not been achieved was, 
in his nephew's opinion, no fault of his, but of those ignorant 



THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE EMPIRE 207 

and reactionary nations which had waged war upon him, had The pro- 
defeated him at Waterloo, and had thus cut right athwart ^^^^^^ 

° ^ the new 

his beneficent activity. However inaccurate a judgment Emperor, 
this may have been, it was of importance, as it furnished 
the new ruler with a programme. He declared his desire to 
finish the work his uncle had been forced to leave unfinished, 
to restore order, so sadly compromised by the unstable, 
feverish regimes since 1815 — and this he could only do, he 
held, by exercising autocratic power — and then to cap the 
structure with liberty in all its plenitude. The history of 
the Second Empire falls into these two divisions — autocracy 
unlimited from 1852 to I860, and a growing liberalism from 
1860 to 1870, when the Empire collapsed, its programme woe- 
fully unrealized. 

The political institutions of the early Empire merit de- The politi- 
scription. They were adopted largely from the Consulate. ' 

The machinery was elaborate, and mainly valuable for pur- Empire, 
poses of deception. The principle of universal suffrage, 
proclaimed by the Republic of 1848, was preserved, was in- 
deed in theory made the basis of the whole imperial regime, 
but was ingeniously rendered quite innocuous to the autocrat. 
There was a Legislative Body of 251 members elected every 
six years by universal suffrage. But most modest was to 
be the role of this assembly. It was to be no real parlia- 
ment, such as had existed under Louis XVIII, Charles X, 
Louis Philippe, and the late Republic. It could not even 
elect its own president, who was appointed, as were the 
vice-presidents, by the Emperor. It could not propose legis- 
lation. All bills were laid before it by the Emperor. It 
could not question the ministers, or by adverse votes over- 
throw them, as they were appointed by the Emperor and 
were responsible to him alone. Its sessions were public, but Parliament 

miffht be made secret upon the request of five members. Thus °^'® ^ ^ 

. . ... mufled, 

when discussion became excitmg it could be prevented from 

becoming noised abroad that there was dissension within the 

state ; indeed, no reports of these debates might be pub- 



208 THE SECOND EMPIRE 

lished by the newspapers, save an official minute, dry, ana- 
lytical, concise, drawn up by the presiding officer, himself, 
as has been said, an appointee of the Emperor. Political 
eloquence was the evil spirit carefully to be exorcised. No 
more speeches of a Lamartine, inflaming and shaping out- 
side opinion. Parliament was absolutely insulated from the 

Its legisla- public. Even the subjects of legislation on which it might 
^ express approval or disapproval were carefully limited, a 
large legislative power belonging to the Emperor alone. It 
did not even control taxation. Though it voted the budget 
each year, the Emperor had the right during its recesses 
to contract extraordinary loans, which, of course, meant that 
he virtually possessed the vital power of taxation. This 
was really the old regime back again. 

The Senate. There was also a Senate, composed of the Emperor's ap- 
pointees — marshals, admirals, cardinals, and others, irre- 
movable, serving for life. This body had no legislative 
power, no executive power, no judicial power. It was de- 
clared " the guardian of the fundamental law " ; that is, the 
Constitution. All laws must be submitted to it, not for 
discussion and possible amendment, but that it might oppose 
their promulgation if it found them opposed to the Constitu- 
tion. It was to interpret doubtful or obscure phrases of 
the Constitution ; it might propose amendments, senatus con- 
sulta, which would become definite when sanctioned by the 
Emperor. Its powers were nominally extensive, purposely 
vague, and might easily become entirely inoperative. The 
Senate, as a matter of fact, was the mere tool of the 
Emperor. 

The Council There was also a Council of State, appointed by the Em- 
of State. ' x-jr J 

peror and removable by him, with power to frame laws 

to be submitted by the ministers to the Legislative Body, 

but with no power of legislating. 
The In the midst of these numerous wheels stood the master 

Emperor. mechanician, the Emperor, Napoleon III. His attributes 

were real and sweeping in their range. He had the com- 



THE POWERS OF THE EMPEROR 209 

mand of the army and the navy, decided upon war and 
peace, could alone conclude treaties of peace, of commerce, 
of political alliance. He was the fountain of justice, pos- 
sessing the full power of pardon. He appointed to all im- 
portant offices. The ministers were absolutely dependent 
on him. He appointed the Council of State, the Senate, 
the High Court, and, as we have seen, could largely manipu- 
late the Legislative Body, which, moreover, he alone could 
convene, adjourn, and dissolve. He alone had the right 
to propose laws ; the Council of State worked them out in 
detail, and the Legislative Body approved ; after that he, 
as if his power were not already sufficient, could sanction 
and promulgate them. Having dissolved the legislature, he 
need not call another for six months. 

Li short, the Emperor was the state. All this machinery I-'etat! 
did not disguise, but rather accentuated his autocracy. The °^°^' 

important fact for several years was not the activity of 
these various bodies, but of the one man. Parliamentary 
institutions, until 1860, were little else than a sounding- 
board for the wishes of the monarch. 

It is true that France had a Legislative Body, which was, 
however, thoroughly bottled up, as we have seen. This 
body was elected by universal suffrage, but the elections 
were controlled in various ways by the Government. It 
proposed in every district an official candidate, whom it 
forced all office-holders to support actively. It hampered 
in numerous and ingenious ways independent candidates. 
All meetings for campaign purposes were prohibited as 
" prejudicial to the free exercise of the suffrage." The The press 
press, so essential an aid in any free political life, was thor- ^"^ckled. 
oughly shackled, so that practically only those newspapers 
favorable to the Government could flourish. No new jour- 
nal might be established without the preliminary permission 
of the Government. Every change of editor or manager 
must likewise be officially approved. Also, as a guarantee 
for good behavior, a deposit must be made, proportioned to 



210 THE SECOND EMPIRE 

the importance of the place of publication, which might be 
as high as 50,000 francs for Paris, as high as 15,000 for 
the departments. A system of warnings was developed, 
whereby after two warnings that articles had appeared dis- 
agreeable to the Government, the publication might be in- 
definitely suspended. New press misdeameanors were 
created. To describe the sessions of the Legislative Body 
other than by the publication of the official minutes was 
one of these. To publish false news another. Press cases 
were taken from juries, who showed a tendency to be just, 
and handed over to special courts which had the right to 
act summarily. 

Under this system political life was completely stamped 
out, intellectual independence well-nigh extinguished. Re- 
pression was all-powerful and endlessly pervasive. France 
was no longer a land of freedom. For several years she 
breathed a mephitic atmosphere of intellectual humiliation 
and effacement. 
The Empire jjj return for all this Napoleon sought to entertain and 

divert and enrich France. His government was "both re- 
pressive *=• 

and pro- pressive and progressive — repressive of whatever imperiled 
gressive. his power, progressive in devotion to whatever might adorn 
and strengthen it." ^ Marrying at this time a young 
Spanish woman of twenty-six years, of remarkable 
beauty and of noble birth. Mile. Eugenie de Monti jo, " a 
marriage of love," as he told the French people, the 
Tuileries immediately became the center of a court life 
probably the most brilliant and luxurious of the nineteenth 
century. Fete followed fete in swift succession. Life 
could not be more lavish or more gay. Sumptuous 
and showy, the balls, dinners, military parades, illuminations 
were, it was given out, not mere self-indulgence for the 
favored few, but were of advantage to all France. Did 
they not encourage business and trade.? A shower of gold 
wherever it fell was considered highly fructifying. Some 
^ Gorce, Histoire du Second Empire, II, 3. 



POLICIES OF NAPOLEON III 211 

criticized, asking if it was worth while to overthrow parlia- 
ment in order to put an orchestra in its place, but in the 
main, joy was unconfined; and bourgeois society paid court 
society the genuine compliment of imitation. 

But pleasure did not engross the attention of the new T^® 
sovereign. His reign was distinguished by a spirit of great fvities 
enterprise, kindly feeling for the masses, good works of 
benefit to the different classes of society. The Emperor 
was no incorrigible conservative like Metternich, but a very 
modern man, anxious that his reign should be memorable 
for works of utility, of improvement. He had a genuine 
love for humanity, a sincere desire to help those who are 
heavy laden. He founded hospitals and asylums freely, 
and relief societies of various kinds for the poor. The free 
distribution of medicines was provided for. In 1864 labor- 
ers were given for the first time in French history the right 
to strike, which has proved a most important weapon in 
their hands for the betterment of their conditions. Banks Economic 
were organized from which landed proprietors, both great ^^^°P" 
and small, might obtain loans on easy terms to enable them 
to carry on improvements in agriculture. The railways, de- 
nounced by Thiers as " the costly luxury of the rich," " toys 
for the Parisians," were extended in a few years from a 
mileage of 2,000 to one of 6,000. Steamboat lines were 
established to enlarge the markets of France by trans- 
atlantic commerce. Canals were begun. For the Emperor 
was distinctly a man of his age, responsive to new ideas, and 
sincerely enthusiastic in promoting all the progress in the 
arts and trades which the marvelous discoveries of modern 
science rendered possible. No class of the population was 
ignored in these schemes. In Napoleon's opinion, preceding 
governments had failed precisely because they had considered 
only a class — the Legitimist monarchy only the aristocracy, 
the Orleanist monarchy only the rich bourgeoisie. The 
Empire, he said, stood for no class, but for the nation in 
all its entirety. A great international exposition was held 



212 



THE SECOND EMPIRE 



Paris 
beautified. 



General 
prosperity. 



The Con- 
gress of 
Paris, 1856. 



in Paris in 1855, bringing thousands of visitors to Paris, and 
giving a distinct impulsion to material progress by its im- 
pressive revelation of the wealth of the tools at man's dis- 
posal. 

A grandiose scheme for the modernization and beautifica- 
tion of Paris was projected, which, carried out by Baron 
Haussmann, made it the most attractive and comfortable 
capital in Europe. This transformation of the capital, 
indeed, was one of the principal undertakings of the Second 
Empire, an undertaking in process of execution during the 
entire course of the reign. 

All these enterprises greatly stimulated commerce. An 
era of unwonted speculation now set in. The Stock Ex- 
change reflected vividly the buoyancy and daring of the 
period. Fortunes were made quickly, and of a size hitherto 
unknown in France. Thus, in an air of general prosperity, 
of economic expansion, of multifarious activity, men forgot 
their loss of liberty, and even the great famines, great floods, 
and important business failures which occurred during this 
period did not produce the usual unrest. They were re- 
garded as merely the reverse of what was, in the main, a 
most attractive picture. 

In 1856 Napoleon III was at the zenith of his power. 
The Empire had been recognized by all the other states of 
Europe. The Emperor had, with England and Piedmont 
as allies, waged a successful war against Russia in the 
Crimea.' He was supposed to have the best army in Europe, 
and he was honored in the face of all the world by having 
Paris chosen as the seat of the congress which drew up 
the treaties at the end of that war. And now an heir was 
born to him, the Prince Imperial, as interesting to his day 
and as ill-fated as the King of Rome had been in his. For- 
tune seemed to have emptied her full horn of plenty upon 
the author of the coup d'etat. 

But the Empire had already reached its apogee, though 

^See Chapter XXVIII. 



THE EMPIRE AND PEACE 213 

this was not evident for some time. The Emperor's policy The 

had thus far been dominated by a very clear perception ™p^^°^f 

*' '^ ^ , policy of 

of self-interest. Now it was to change, become less precise, peace. 

bolder, and more uncertain, calculated to arouse criticism 
and to create a lack of confidence, a general sense of in- 
security. In preparing France for the Empire while yet 
he was the dictatorial President of 1852, Napoleon had taken 
special care to reassure her on one point. As the First 
Empire had been a period of unexampled war, would not 
the Second be the same? In a speech at Bordeaux, wliich 
became famous, Napoleon had with great deliberation treated 
this subject. " Nevertheless," said he, " there is a fear to 
which I ought to reply. In a spirit of distrust certain 
people say: the Empire is war. But I say: the Empire is 
peace. I confess, however, that I, like the Emperor, have 
many conquests to make. I wish, like him, to win and to 
reconcile the hostile parties," and to achieve economic and 
moral victories of various kinds. "... Such are the con- 
quests that I contemplate, and all of you who surround 
me, who desire, like myself, the welfare of the fatherland, 
you are my soldiers." To the latter sort of con- 
quests the Emperor gave himself, as we have seen, with 
energy and success. But the other part of his promise 
he did not adhere to. Wars were frequent in his reign, 
wars not forced upon him but created by him, wars 
disastrous to himself and to his dynasty, as the more 
famous ones of the First Empire had been to the First 
Napoleon. 

The policy of the Empire at home after 1860 was deter- 
mined by the policy abroad. This was determined by the 
Emperor, who had uncontrolled rights of making war, which 
rights he unwisely used. The beginning of his serious The Italian 
troubles was his participation in the Italian war of ^^^ ° 
1859. "''• 

To understand the course of the Second Empire from 
1860 to 1870 one must study the part played by Napoleon 



214. THE SECOND EMPIRE 

III in the making of modem Italy, the consequences of 
which were to be for him so unexpected, so far-reaching, 
and in the end so disastrous. And correctly to appraise 
that policy we must first trace the history of the rise of the 
Kingdom of Italy. 



CHAPTER X 

CAVOUR AND THE CREATION OF THE KINGDOM 

OF ITALY 

CAVOUR AND NAPOLEON III 

With the failure of the revolutions of 1848-9 Italy re- Reaction in 
turned to her former condition, of division into small states, -g-g 
arbitrary government, and domination of Austria. The 
punishment of Liberals was general, and at times savage, 
particularly in Lombardy-Venetia and in Naples. In the 
latter case the proceedings were so iniquitous that Glad- 
stone, in a flaming pamphlet, denounced the Neapolitan 
government as the very negation of God erected into a 
system. After the Pope's return to Rome, his government 
was guilty of such misdeeds that its supporter, Louis Na- 
poleon, protested, though in vain. In Tuscany the govern- 
ment was characterized by severity, in Lombardy and 
Venetia by long-continued persecutions. Constitutions that 
had been granted were generally revoked. One state in 
the peninsula formed a brilliant exception to this sorry 
system of reaction — Piedmont. Though badly defeated on 
the battlefield at Custozza in 1848, and at Novara in 1849, 
it had gained an important moral victory. An Italian prince 
had risked his throne twice for the cause of Italian in- 
dependence, conduct which for multitudes of Italians marked 
the House of Savoy as the leader of the future. More- 
over, the king who had done this, Charles Albert, had also 
granted his people a constitution. He had abdicated after 
the battle of Novara, and his son, Victor Emmanuel II, then 
twenty-nine years of age, had come to the throne. 

215 



216 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

Austria offered Victor Emmanuel easy terms of peace if 
he would abrogate this constitution, and prospects of aggran- 
dizement were dangled before him. He absolutely refused. 
This was a turning point in his career, in the history of 
Piedmont, and in that of Italy. It won him the popular 
Piedmont a title of the Honest King. It made Piedmont the one hope 
constitu- q£ Italian Liberals. She was national and constitutional. 
* Henceforth her leadership was assured. For the next ten 
years her history is the history of the making of the King- 
dom of Italy. Thither Liberals who were driven out of 
the other states took refuge, and their number was large. 

Victor Emmanuel was a brave soldier, a man, not of bril- 
liant mind, but of sound and independent judgment, of abso- 
lute loyalty to his word, of intense patriotism. And he 
had from 1850 on, in his leading minister, Count Camillo di 
Cavour, one of the greatest statesmen and diplomatists of 
the nineteenth century. 

Cavour was born in 1810. His family belonged to the 
nobility of Piedmont. He received a military education 
and joined the army as an engineer. But by his liberal 
opinions, freely expressed, he incurred the hostility of his 
superiors and was kept for a time in semi-imprisonment. 
He resigned his commission in 1831, and for the next fifteen 
years lived the life of a country gentleman, developing 
his estates. By studying the new scientific processes of 
agriculture, by introducing and inducing others to introduce 
machinery, by experimenting with canal irrigation and arti- 
ficial fertilizers, he was largely instrumental in revolution- 
izing farming in Piedmont. During these years, to vary the 
monotony of existence, he visited France and England 
repeatedly, interested particularly in political and economic 
questions. He was anxious to play a part in politics him- 
self, though he saw no chance in a country as yet without 
representative institutions. " Oh ! if I were an English- 
man," he said, " by this time I should be something, and 
my name would not be wholly unknown." Meanwhile, he 



COUNT CAMILLO DI CAVOUR 217 

studied abroad the institutions he desired for his own country, His interest 
particularly the English parliamentary system. Night after 
night he sat in the gallery of the House of Commons, seeking nomic ques- 
to make himself thoroughly familiar with its modes of proce- tions. 
dure. Cavour's mind was the opposite of Mazzini's, practical, 
positive, not poetical and speculative. He wrote on social and 
economic questions. Particularly did he advocate the build- 
ing of railroads as tending effectively to promote the moral 
unity of Italy, which must precede political unity. They 
would sweep away local jealousies and bind the Italians 
of different sections together commercially. Rome ought 
to be the center of the system, which should unite the whole 
peninsula. In all these plans for the material enrichment 
of Piedmont and of Italy, he was dominated by the patriotic 
consideration that they would contribute to the achievement 
of independence and unity. In 1847, when the censorship 
of the press was abolished in Piedmont, Cavour saw that 
his opportunity had come, left his retirement, and founded 
a liberal newspaper called II Risorgimento. Its aims were Becomes an 
" independence, union between the princes and people, ® ' 
and reforms." He welcomed with enthusiasm the creation 
in 1848 of a parliament for Piedmont and of a constitution, 
which he had, indeed, been one of the boldest to demand. 
" Italy," he said, " must make herself by means of liberty, 
or we must give up trying to make her." This belief in 
parliamentary institutions Cavour held tenaciously all 
through his life, even when at times they seemed to be a 
hindrance to his policies. He believed that in the end, 
sooner or later, the people reach the truth of a matter. He 
was elected to the first Piedmontese Parliament, was taken 
into the cabinet in 1850, and became prime minister in 1852. Cavour 
He held this position for the remainder of his life, with the F""™^ ™''^" 
exception of a few weeks, provmg himself a great statesman 
and an incomparable diplomat. 

Cavour had said in 1850, with an optimism and a courage 
not daunted by the disastrous defeats of Custozza and No- 



218 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Policy of 
economic 
develop- 
ment. 



Cavour 
seeks a 
military 
ally. 



vara, that if Piedmont would " gather to itself all the living 
forces in Italy it would be in a position to lead our mother 
country to those high destinies whereunto she is called." 
To accomplish this, he now said, " Piedmont must begin 
by raising herself, by re-establishing in Europe as well as 
in Italy a position and a credit equal to her ambition." He 
threw himself with enthusiasm and intelligence into his pre- 
liminary work of making Piedmont, a small and poor coun- 
try, strong, vigorous, modern, of calling the attention of 
the great powers to this little state beneath the Alps. To 
accomplish this the army must be reorganized and strength- 
ened, the fleet built up, fortifications erected. This would 
involve immense expenditure. But Piedmont's debt had 
been greatly increased by the late war. The interest on 
it had mounted from about two million lire in 1847 to thirty 
million in 1852. There were large annual deficits ; bank' 
ruptcy appeared imminent. Economy rather than expendi- 
ture seemed imperative. Not so thought Cavour. He be- 
lieved in spending freely on improvements, because they 
were necessary, and because in the end larger revenues would 
result. He urged large appropriations not only for the army, 
but for public works. He encouraged agriculture, completed 
the railway system of Piedmont, stimulated commerce and in- 
dustry by treaties of commerce with other states, secula- 
rized some of the monastic lands, levied new taxes, all this, 
of course, by securing the necessary laws from Parliament. 
The result of all this activity was that Piedmont entered 
upon a period of rapid growth in material prosperity, and 
the new burdens were as easily borne as the old had been. 
Cavour was thus able to create a large and well-equipped 
army of ninety thousand men, remarkable for a state whose 
population was only five million. And this facilitated his 
next object, which was to secure for Piedmont an ally among 
the great powers, for this he considered absolutely necessary 
if she were to accomplish her high mission. jCavour 
believed, as did all true patriots, that Austria must f)e driven 



PIEDMONT AND THE CRIMEAN WAR 219 

out of Italy before any Italian regeneration could be 

achieved. But he did not believe with Mazzini and others 

that the Italians could accomplish this feat alone. In his 

opinion the history of the last forty years had shown that 

plots and insurrections would not avail. It was essential 

to win the aid of a great military power comparable in 

strength and discipline to Austria. This explains why he 

urged that Piedmont participate in the Crimean war. 

The Crimean war was fought in 1854 and 1855 by France why 

and England against Russia, to prevent the latter power I'iedinont 

T)3,rtici" 

from dismembering the Turkish Empire. There seemed to _^^g^ ij^ 

be no reason for a small and struggling state like Piedmont the Cri- 
to interfere. It had no serious quarrel with Russia. The mean war. 
preservation or dismemberment of Turkey was for it a matter 
of only remote concern. Yet Cavour, looking beyond the 
immediate question, believed that Piedmont's and Italy's in- 
terests would be subserved by an alliance offensive and de- 
fensive with the two western powers against Russia. For 
he believed that thus Piedmont would win the good will of 
her two allies, and might take her place as an equal at the 
council board of European diplomacy. Such a position 
this state, petty and poor, in comparison with France and 
England and Austria and Russia, with barely five millions 
of people, had hitherto not held. Among the " powers " 
she was practically unrecognized. For reasons, then, quite 
remote from the real question at issue, and reasons, there- 
fore, which Cavour could not publicly give, he wished to use 
this opportunity. His plan was bitterly denounced and 
generally condemned. It was said that the quarrel was 
none of Piedmont's, that by sending her army to the Crimea 
she would be exposing her own frontiers, that her finances 
would be ruined by this additional strain, that she should 
husband her money and her men for her own struggle, which 
must ultimately come with Austria. Her resources would 
be none too great at best. Cavour himself called the risks 
of the venture " enormous." 



220 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Cavour at 
the Con- 
gress of 
Paris. 



Discussion 
of the 
Italian 
question. 



Moral 
victory 
for Cavour. 



But he succeeded in carrying it through. Seventeen thou- 
sand Sardinians were sent to the Crimea, where they proved 
excellent soldiers and won distinction. But Cavour was not 
aiming primarily at military glory, but at moral and diplo- 
matic victories. Piedmont had entered the alliance uncon- 
ditionally. She was not promised that, participating in 
the war, she would be permitted to participate in the making 
of the peace, and when the Congress of Paris was called in 
1856 Cavour started out not knowing whether he would be 
admitted to it, owing to Austria's opposition. He was going to 
Paris, he said, in order " to sniff the air." But a few days 
after his arrival he was informed that he would be received. 
The two great powers could not well consent to the ignoring 
of their ally. Cavour had won the interest of Napoleon III, 
who in 1855 had asked him, " What can be done for Italy .^^ " 
Cavour had replied by a memorandum. Now in Paris, 
after the treaty had been made, Napoleon caused the ques- 
tion of Italy — a question foreign to the purpose of the 
Congress — to be brought before it. This was Cavour's 
chance. The Italian situation was to be discussed in a 
congress in which Austria sat. Clarendon, representing 
England, indignantly denounced the Papal Government as a 
" disgrace to Europe," and Ferdinand's misrule in Naples 
as crying for the intervention of the civilized world. This 
speech created an extraordinary sensation. Moreover, by 
bringing the Italian question forward, it furnished Cavour an 
opportunity to speak. His speech was brief, cautious, and 
bold. The main cause of the evils from which Italy suffered 
was Austria, he declared. " Austria is the arch-enemy of 
Italian independence; the permanent danger to the only 
free nation in Italy, the nation which I have the honor to 
represent." 

Cavour returned from Paris with no material advantage 
gained, but his moral victory was complete. Piedmont had 
participated in a council of the great powers. Austria 
had been indicted publicly in a great international congress. 



THE NATIONAL SOCIETY 221 

So had the Pope, and so had the King of Naples. Piedmont 

had again shown that she was the champion of all Italy. 

Many who, influenced by Mazzini, had hitherto believed that 

Italy's salvation lay in a republic, began to change their 

opinion, and to entertain an increasing confidence in the 

patriotism and statesmanship and military power of the 

Piedmontese monarchy. Cavour had gained for himself a 

great reputation as a diplomatist. Prince Metternich, now 

in retirement, and a connoisseur in such matters, is said to 

have remarked : " There is only one diplomatist in Europe, but 

unfortunately he is against us ; it is M. de Cavour." Cavour 

was now one of the commanding personalities of Europe. 

His position in his own country was more solid than ever. 

After the Congress of Paris Piedmont proceeded still 

further to make herself the model state of Italy. Laws Army 

were passed strengthening the army. Industry expanded strength- 

• • cued* 

under wise legislation. Education was stimulated, and the 

National Society was organized to encourage the growth 
in the other states of Italy of a sentiment in favor of Pied- Founding 
mont. The motto of this society was : " Independence and ^ . . ^ , 
Unity ; out with the Austrians and the Pope." The sub- society, 
jects of other states were to be won from their loyalty to 
their own princes to loyalty to Piedmont. A revolution 
in opinion and sentiment was to be effected that later a 
political revolution might be easier. This society was suc- 
cessful. Many, like Manin, who had hitherto been Repub- 
licans, renounced their republicanism and declared them- 
selves willing under certain conditions to follow Piedmont. 
" Make Italy," wrote Manin, " and we are with you ; if not, 
not." The National Society spread rapidly throughout 
the other states. By it Liberals everywhere were drawn to- 
gether under the banner of the House of Savoy, and a 
state of mind was created favorable to the overthrow of the 
petty princes and the exaltation of Piedmont. 

Cavour had returned from Paris hoping that France 
might shortly be induced to aid Piedmont. The Emperor 



222 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Cavour and had in 1855 asked what he could do for Italy, and Cavour 
Napoleon j^^^^j responded with all explicitness. Suddenly all hope of 
this consummation seemed dashed to the ground by a murder- 
ous attempt upon the life of Napoleon by certain Italians, 
led by Orsini (January 14, 1858). This, however, did 
not deflect Napoleon from the alliance with Sardinia toward 
which he had been tending for some time. The motives that 
influenced him to take the step momentous for himself 
as well as for Italy were numerous. The principle of 
nationality which he held tenaciously, and which largely 
determined the foreign policy of his entire reign, prompted 
him in this direction — the principle, namely, that peoples 
of the same race and language had the right to be united 
politically. He sought, as we shall see, to further this 
principle in several cases, with results very disastrous to 
himself and to France. 

Further, Napoleon had long been interested in Italy. He 
had himself taken part in the revolutionary movements there 
in 1831, and had probably been a member of the Carbonari. 
Moreover, it was one of his ambitions to tear up the treaties 
of 1815, treaties that sealed the humiliation of the Na- 
poleonic dynasty. These treaties still formed the basis of 
the Italian political system in 1858. Again, he was 
probably lured on by a desire to win glory for his throne, 
and there was always the chance, too, of gaining territory. 
Fear, also, may have influenced him. Orsini had not been the 
first Italian who had tried to assassinate the Emperor; he 
might not be the last, if he should do nothing for Italy. 

At any rate, the Emperor decided to draw closer to Pied- 
mont. Hardly six months after Orsini's attempt, he in- 
vited Cavour to meet him at Plombieres, a watering place 
in the Vosges mountains. The meeting, which occurred 
July 21, 1858, was shrouded in utmost mystery. Only 
two persons in Piedmont knew of it, Victor Emmanuel and 
General La Marmora. The ministers of Napoleon were 
kept in ignorance of it. The Emperor, always a dreamer 



The 

interview 
at Plom- 
bieres. 



THE INTERVIEW OF PLOMBllCRES 223 

and conspirator, was now closeted with a conspirator far 
more skilful than himself. The interview of Plombieres is 
one of the most famous in the history of the century. There 
were long conversations, a memorable description of which 
was contained in a letter which Cavour immediately sent to 
Victor Emmanuel and which constitutes our chief source of 
information concerning the intrigues of two unscrupulous A con- 
men conspiring for different reasons to bring about a war.^ ^ . 
No written agreement or treaty of alliance was made, but it a war. 
was agreed verbally that France and Piedmont should go to 
war with Austria, but only upon some pretext which could be 
justified before Europe, and which would make it appear that 
the two powers were not bent upon revolution, but that they 
were merely repelling Austrian aggression. A rising in 
Massa and Carrara was to serve as the pretext. If Austria The 

should begin war against Piedmont, France would come to the 

. . . . . agreed 

latter''s assistance, and if the allies were victorious Italy should upon. 

be reconstituted as follows : Lombardy and Venetia should be 
added to Piedmont, as should also the duchies and parts of 
the Papal States, the Romagna and the Legations. Austria 
would thus be completely expelled from the peninsula, and 
Victor Emmanuel would rule over a kingdom of Northern 
Italy. The rest of the Papal States, with the exception of 
Rome and a region round about should be added to Tuscany 
which would thus form a kingdom of Central Italy. These two 
kingdoms and that of Naples and the Papal States should 
then be united into an Italian Confederation under the presi- 
dency of the Pope who might consequently feel compensated 
for the loss of most of his possessions. In return for her 
aid France was to receive Savoy and possibly Nice. The 
Emperor urged a marriage between his cousin Prince Napo- 
leon and the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. No definite 
agreement was then made. Prince Napoleon was a de- 
bauchee of forty-three. Princess Clotilde was a young 

^ Chiala, Lettere edite ed inedite di Camillo Cavour, II, 568 seq. 
2nd edit. 



224 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



position. 



girl of sixteen. Ultimately this sacrifice was made — so re- 
volting to Victor Emmanuel and the Piedmontese. Early 
in December 1858 these verbal agreements were put into 
writing, though not, it would seem, although the matter is 
most obscure, into a binding treaty. 
Difficulties Though Cavour had apparently achieved the dream of his 

and dangers j-£g^ ^^^ alliance with a great military power, his position 
during the next few months, between the meeting at Plom- 
bieres, July 1858, and the final declaration of war, April 
1859, was one of extraordinary difficulty. He had invoked 
a powerful spirit. Could he control it, or would he become 
the mere sport of it.'' Might not Napoleon, notably of a 
changeable mind, change it now at the critical time, leaving 
Piedmont high and dry, at the mercy of her powerful 
neighbor, Austria, leaving Cavour and all his policy a 
wreck.? Might not the other powers, getting wind of the con- 
spiracy, step in to prevent war, the necessity of which was 
the very basis of Cavour's policy for the creation of modem 
Italy, as it was of Bismarck's policy later for the creation 
of modern Germany .? If the war should come and Napoleon 
should be faithful to his engagements, might not the greatest 
danger lie right there.'* Might not a victorious Napoleon in 
Italy do what a victorious Napoleon had done in Italy 
before, use his opportunity for his own advantage and not 
for that of the Italians, whom he ostensibly came to succor .f* 
Cavour did not wish to play a game for Napoleon. The 
risk at any rate must be run. 

It had been stipulated by Napoleon that he would support 
Piedmont in a war with Austria if Austria appeared as the 
aggressor. Cavour's policy therefore for the next months 
was to provoke Austria to this end. It was a period of 
great tension for the Piedmontese minister, in which he dis- 
played extraordinary resourcefulness, coolness, craft, un- 
scrupulousness. He wove ceaselessly a marvelous web of 
tortuous intrigue. Now Napoleon seemed about to with- 
draw ; now a congress of the powers to cut clean through the 



Cavour's 
diplomacy 



THE AUSTRO-SARDINIAN WAR 225 

projects of these conspirators. Into the interesting details 
of these machinations we cannot go. In the end they were 
successful, and Austria was goaded by Cavour's conduct 
to take the fatal step. She demanded that Piedmont disarm 
within three days, otherwise war would be declared. War 
was precisely the thing Cavour wanted, and for which he 
had for months been ceaselessly working. He had contrived 
to make Austria appear the aggressor and now the case had 
arisen for which Napoleon had promised his aid. Piedmont 
refused the Austrian ultimatum, and at the end of April The 
1859 war began. The public opinion of other nations blamed Austro- 
Austria and exonerated Piedmont, most unjustly, for this ^^^ 
war was Cavour's, desired by him and brought about by him 
with extraordinary skill. That he had succeeded in throw- 
ing the whole responsibility for it on his enemy was only ^ 
further evidence of the cunning of his fine Italian hand. 

The Austro-Sardinian war lasted only about two months. The 
The Austrian armies were large but incompetently led. ^^^^ggg^^ 
They wasted the time before the arrival of the French troops 
when Piedmont was at their mercy. When the French 
arrived, the Emperor at their head, active fighting began. 
The theater of war was limited to Lombardy. The battles 
of Magenta (June 4) and of Solferino (June 24) were 
victories for the Allies. The latter was one of the gi*eatest 
battles of the nineteenth century. It lasted eleven hours, 
more than 260,000 men were engaged, nearly 800 cannon. 
The Allies lost over 17,000 men, the Austrians about 22,000. 
All Lombardy was conquered, and Milan was occupied. It 
seemed that Venetia could be easily overrun and the termina- 
tion of Austrian rule in Italy effected, and Napoleon's 
statement that he would free Italy " from the Alps to the 
Adriatic " accomplished. Suddenly Napoleon halted in the ^^^ ^^^' 
full tide of success, sought an interview with the Emperor ^^ villa- 
of Austria at Villafranca, and there on July 11th, without franca, 
consulting the wishes of his ally, concluded a famous armis- 
tice. The terms agreed upon by the two Emperors were: 



226 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Eeasons 
for Napo- 
leon's 
action. 



(1) The creation of an Italian Confederation under the 
honorary presidency of the Pope. (2) The cession to 
France, and the transfer by France to Sardinia, of the 
province of Lombardy. (3) The inclusion of Venetia in the 
Italian Confederation, as a province, however, under the 
Crown of Austria. (4) The restoration of the Grand Duke 
of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena to their respective 
states, whence they had just been driven by popular uprisings. 
The considerations that determined Napoleon to stop in 
the middle of a successful campaign, and before he had 
attained the object for which he had come into Italy, were 
many and serious. While victorious on five battlefields he 
had no reason to feel elated. Magenta and Solferino had 
been victories, but he saw that they might easily have been 
defeats. He had conquered Lombardy, but Austria had 
150,000 men in Venetia, and 100,000 more were advancing 
to join them. Austria's troops would then outnumber his. 
Moreover Austria would now plant herself firmly in the 
famous Quadrilateral, whose fortresses could only be taken, 
if at all, after long and difficult sieges. Furthermore, the 
control of events was plainly slipping from him. The effect 
of the Piedmontese propaganda in the other states of Italy 
was already becoming apparent. During the war the Ro- 
magna had thrown off^ its allegiance to the Pope, the author- 
ity of the rulers of Modena and Parma had been renounced 
by their rebellious subjects, and all three — the Romagna, the 
two duchies, and Tuscany also, were clamoring for annexa- 
tion to Piedmont. If the war should continue the other 
Italians might show the same determination and Napoleon 
might find that, instead of an enlarged kingdom of Piedmont, 
a kingdom of all Italy had been created, and many of the 
leading men in France were denouncing as very dangerous 
to France this possible creation of a powerful state on her 
southeastern border. The French Catholics were opposed 
to the continuation of a war so full of menace to the Pope. 
Moreover, Prussia was mobilizing her troops on the Rhine 



THE PEACE OF VILLAFRANCA- 227 

and was contemplating intervention, and France was in no 

condition to fight Austria and Prussia combined. Also, the 

Emperor had been touched by the horrors of the battlefield. 

" The poor people, the poor people, what a horrible thing 

is war," he was heard to say more than once at Solferino. 

Austria was eager for peace. Her army was badly led. Austria 

She was involved in trouble with Hungary. She did not ^^^^^ ^°' 

. . . peace, 

relish being saved by Prussia, for Prussia might then seize 

her leadership in Germany. Francis Joseph, too, like Na- 
poleon, was horrified by war. " Better lose a province," he 
said after Solferino, " than be present again at so awful a 
spectacle." Thus both rulers were willing to come to 
terms. 

The news of the armistice came as a cruel disappointment 
to the Italians, dashing their hopes just as they were appa- 
rently about to be realized. The Government of Victor 
Emmanuel had not even been consulted. In intense indigna- 
tion at the faithlessness of Napoleon, overwrought by the 
excessive strain under which he had long been laboring, 
Cavour completely lost his self-control, urged desperate 
measures upon the King and, when they were declined, in a 
fit of rage, threw up his office. The King by overruling Kesigna- 
Cavour showed himself wiser than his gifted minister. As ^^°^ °^ 
disappointed as the latter, he saw more clearly than did 
Cavour that though Piedmont had not gained all that she had 
hoped to, yet she had gained much. It was wiser to take what 
one could get and bide the future than to imperil all by some 
mad course. Here was one of the great moments where the in- 
dependence and common sense of Victor Emmanuel were of 
great and enduring service to his country. 

Napoleon had not done all that he had planned for Italy, Piedmont 
yet he had rendered a very important service. He had se- ^^1^^^^^ 
cured Lombardy for Piedmont. It should also be noted that 
he himself acknowledged that the failure to carry out the 
whole programme had cancelled any claim he had upon the 
annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. 



228 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

ANNEXATIONS AFTER VILLAFRANCA 

Thus by the preliminaries of Villafranca, embodied later 
in the Peace of Zurich, November 10, 1859, the Emperor 
of the French and the Emperor of Austria put an end to 
the process of Italian unification shortly after it had begun. 
Piedmont had grown by the addition of Lombardy and that 
was all. Austria was still an Italian power, and by the 
terms agreed upon was to be a member of the projected 
Italian Confederation. That she could use that position 
to continue her leadership in Italy was proved by her success 
in using the German Confederation for purposes of leader- 
ship in Germany. The Pope was still a temporal ruler and 
his power indeed was to be augmented by the presidency of the 
Confederation. Thus the Austrian Emperor and the Pope 
stood in the way of Italian aspirations as before. No wonder 
that Cavour said, though incorrectly, that all the efforts 
Piedmont had made during the past ten years had gone for 
nought. But the Peace of Zurich was destined never to be 
carried out save in one respect that Lombardy was added to 
Piedmont. Victor Emmanuel saw what Cavour failed to see, 
that the chapter was not closed but that it might be carried 
further, that central Italy at least might be drawn into the 
enlarged Kingdom of Piedmont. 
Central The situation in central Italy was this: During the war 

the rulers of Modena, Parma, Tuscany, had been overthrown, 
and the Pope's authority in Romagna, the northern part 
of his dominions, had been destroyed. Assemblies called in 
those states by revolutionary leaders voted, in August 1859, 
in favor of annexation to Piedmont. Thus the provinces 
of central Italy hurled defiance at the two Emperors who 
had decided at Villafranca that the rulers of those countries 
should be restored. Piedmont declined their offer at the 
time, knowing the opposition of Napoleon, and fearing to 
offend him, lest he might then withdraw from Italy entirely, 
thereby leaving Piedmont alone and exposed to Austrian 



Italy. 



NAPOLEON III AND PIEDMONT 229 

attack. But unofficially Piedmont gave them encouragement 

to hold out for annexation. 

The Italians of the central states stood firm. It was Impossibil- 

evident that the former rulers could only be restored by ^^^ ^^' 

storingf the 
force and Napoleon promised that force should not be used, ^^^ order. 

either French or Austrian, to accomplish their restoration. 
For months this anomalous situation continued, harassing 
to every one. The central states, under the leadership of 
Piedmontese statesmen who had gone to them to assume 
direction, revised and rendered uniform their laws, and 
created a common military force that they might in the 
end bring about fusion with Piedmont. Diplomacy sug- 
gested a congress which was never convened, and for some 
time things drifted. Slowly the whole confused situation 
began to clarify. Napoleon came to see that if the peoples 
were left to themselves they would never restore their rulers 
but would insist upon union with Piedmont; that, moreover, 
the federation under the presidency of the Pope could never 
be brought about except by force. He saw also that the 
restoration of the rulers to their duchies would be an 
advantage to Austria but not at all to France. He had no 
desire that Austria should be again predominant in the penin- 
sula. Other events co-operated to hasten a solution. In Eng- England's 

land, in June 1859, a new election had occurred and a ministry pf" ^/" ' 

^ tion in 

had come into office which was very friendly to the cause of affairs. 
Italian unity, and which particularly wished the Italians to 
be strong enough to be independent of the French. The 
English Government protested against the employment of 
French or Austrian forces to repress the clearly expressed 
will of the people of central Italy and to restore the princes. 
This was England's great service to the Italians. " The 
people of the duchies have as much right to change their 
sovereigns," said Lord Palmerston, " as the English people 
or the French, or the Belgian or the Swedish. The annexa- 
tion of the duchies to Piedmont will be an unfathomable 
good to Italy." 



230 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Cavour 
returns to 
office. 



Annexa- 
tion to 
Piedmont. 



Another event tending toward the solution of the question 
was the return of Cavour to power in January 1860, after 
an absence of six months. Cavour saw that the annexation 
of central Italy to Piedmont could be effected only with 
Napoleon's consent, which, therefore, must be secured. But 
Napoleon would not yet give it. It was clear that a bar- 
gain must be made. Piedmont could have the annexa- 
tions for a price and that price was the cession of Savoy 
and Nice to France, which Napoleon had not claimed before 
as he had not carried out the agreement of Plombieres, but 
which he now demanded as compensation for the creation of 
an important state on the southeastern border of France, and 
because he wished, by enlarging the national boundaries, to 
allay the sharp criticism which his Italian policy had aroused 
at home. It was finally agreed that plebiscites should be 
taken in the states of central Italy to see if they wished 
annexation to Piedmont, and in Savoy and Nice to see if 
they wished annexation to France. Thus, in theory, the 
principle would be upheld that peoples have a right to 
dispose of themselves. 

These plebiscites in Italy resulted as was expected. 
(March 11-12, 1860.) The vote was almost unanimous in 
favor of annexation. 

Modena, Parma, Tuscany and the Romagna were thus 
added to the Kingdom of Piedmont, which had already re- 
ceived Lombardy. The Pope issued the major excommuni- 
cation against the authors of this spoliation of his do- 
minions (Romagna), but Victor Emmanuel accepted the 
sovereignty thus offered him, and on April 2nd, 1860, the 
first parliament of the enlarged kingdom met in Turin. 
A small state of less than 5,000,000 had grown to one of 
11,000,000 within a year. This was the most important 
change in the political system of Europe since 1815. As 
far as Italy was concerned it made waste paper of the 
treaties of 1815. It constituted the most damaging breach 
made thus far in the work of the Congress of Vienna. What 



PIEDMONT CEDES SAVOY AND NICE 231 

that congress had decided was to be a mere " geographical 

expression " was now a nation in formation. And this was 

being accomplished by the triumphant assertion of two 

principles utterly odious to the monarchs of 1815, the right 

of revolution and the right of peoples to determine their 

own destinies for themselves, for these annexations were the 

result of war and of plebiscites. 

But Piedmont's triumph was not without an element of Cession 

bitterness for it had been bought with a price, and that price ° Savoy 

was the cession of Savoy ana Nice, with a population of jjy the 

about 700,000, to France. Savoy was the cradle of the Treaty of 

ruling house and its abandonment was a great humiliation, ■•■^'^^"' 

f . , 1 ^ ^ . March 24, 

but it was, m Cavour s opinion, inevitable. Because oi it jseo. 

Garibaldi, a citizen of Nice, attacked him in Parliament with 
remarkable vehemence. " You have made me," he said, " a 
stranger in the land of my birth." " The act," replied 
Cavour with impressive dignity, " that has made this gulf 
between us, was the most painful duty of my life. By 
what I have felt myself I know what Garibaldi must have 
felt. If he refuses me his forgiveness I cannot reproach him 
for it." Parliament supported Cavour, ratifying the cession 
by a majority of 229, more than four-fifths of the entire 
chamber. The plebiscites in Savoy and Nice took place a 
few days later and resulted in an almost unanimous vote for 
annexation to France. One result of this annexation of Effect 
Savoy and Nice was to prove very important for France. ^^°^ *^°" 
It alienated England from Napoleon completely. England 
did not wish to see her powerful neighbor grow larger. The 
depth and unfortunate effect of this estrangement Napoleon 
was to feel fully before many months had passed. More- 
over, might not this acceptance of Italian territory involve 
him in further Italian complications.'' Was he not morally 
compromised.'^ That Cavour appreciated the advantage of 
the situation was shown by his reported remark to the 
French ambassador, " Now you are our accomplices." What 
had Cavour in mind for accomplices to do.'' He did not 



232 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



The 

Sicilian 
Insurrec- 
tion. 



Giuseppe 

Garibaldi, 

1807-1882. 



explain the cryptic utterance, but every one knew that he 
was still far from his cherished goal. Napoleon III would 
still be very useful. Sophisticated Guizot, then living in 
retirement, made at about this time an observation : " There 
are," he said, " two men upon whom the eyes of Europe 
are iSxed, the Emperor Napoleon and M. de Cavour. The 
game is being played. I back M. de Cavour." 

THE CONQUEST OF THE KINGDOM OF NAPLES 

Much had been achieved in the eventful year just described, 
but much remained to be achieved before the unification of 
Italy should be complete. Venetia, the larger part of the 
Papal States, and the Kingdom of Naples still stood outside. 
In the last, however, events now occurred which carried 
the process a long step forward. Early in 1860 the Sicilians 
rose in revolt against the despotism of their new king, 
Francis II. This insurrection created an opportunity for 
a man already famous but destined to a wonderful exploit 
and to a memorable service to his country, Giuseppe Gari- 
baldi, already the most famous military leader in Italy, and 
invested with a half mythical character of invincibility and 
daring, the result of a very spectacular, romantic career. 

Garibaldi was born at Nice in 1807- He was therefore 
two years younger than Mazzini and three years older than 
Cavour. Destined by his parents for the priesthood he 
preferred the sea, and for many years he lived a roving 
and adventurous sailor's life. He early joined "Young 
Italy," His military experience was chiefly in irregular, 
guerilla fighting. He took part in the unsuccessful insur- 
rection, organized by Mazzini in Savoy in 1834, and as a 
result was condemned to death. He managed to escape to 
South America where, for the next fourteen years, he was 
an exile. He participated in the abundant wars of the 
South American states with the famous " Italian Legion," 
which he organized and commanded. Learning of the up- 
rising of 1848 he returned to Italy, though still under the 



GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI 233 

penalty of death, and immediately thousands flocked to the 
standard of the " hero of Montevideo " to fight under him 
against the Austrians. After the failure of that campaign The de- 
he went, in 1849, to Rome to assume the military defense ^®^^® °^ 
of the republic. When the city was about to fall he escaped 
with four thousand troops, intending to attack the Austrian 
power in Venetia. French and Austrian armies pursued him. 
He succeeded in evading them, but his army dwindled away 
rapidly and the chase became so hot that he was forced 
to escape to the Adriatic. When he landed later, his enemies 
were immediately in full cry again, hunting him through for- 
ests and over mountains as if he were some dangerous game. 
It was a wonderful exploit, rendered tragic by the death 
in a farm-house near Ravenna, of his wife Anita, who was his 
companion in the camp as in the home, and who was as 
high-spirited, as daring, as courageous as he. Garibaldi 
finally escaped to America and began once more the life 
of an exile. But his story, shot through and through with 
heroism and chivalry and romance, moved the Italian people 
to unwonted depths of enthusiasm and admiration. 

For several years Garibaldi was a wanderer, sailing the 
seas, commander of a Peruvian bark. For some months, 
indeed, he was a candle maker on Staten Island, but in 1854 Leader of 

he returned to Italy and settled down as a farmer on the " ^^® Hunt- 

ers of the 
little island of Caprera. But the events of 1859 once more ^ips." 

brought him out of his retirement. Again, as a leader of 

volunteers, he plunged into the war against Austria and 

immensely increased his reputation. He had become the 

idol of soldiers and adventurous spirits from one end of 

Italy to the other. Multitudes were ready to follow in 

blind confidence wherever he might lead. His name was one 

to conjure with. There now occurred, in 1860, the most 

brilliant episode of his career, the Sicilian expedition and the 

campaign against the Kingdom of Naples. For Garibaldi, Determines 

the most redoubtable warrior of Italy, whose very name was J? ^° 

worth an army, now decided on his own account to go to 



234 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Cavour's 
dilemma 



The Expe- 
dition of 
"The 
Thousand." 



the aid of the Sicilians who had risen in revolt against their 
king, Francis II of Naples. 

His determination created a serious problem for Cavour. 
The Government of Piedmont could not sanction an attack 
upon the Kingdom of Naples, with which it was at peace, 
without seeming a ruthless aggressor upon an unoffending 
state, and without running the risk of a European inter- 
vention which might undo all the work thus far accomplished. 
In Cavour's opinion the newly enlarged kingdom needed time 
for consolidation before undertaking any further task. On 
the other hand, if Garibaldi determined to go it would be 
dangerous to try to prevent him, and yet the result of a 
successful campaign might make him a rival of Cavour and 
might be used to checkmate Piedmont. It was imperative 
that Piedmont should still direct the evolution of Italy 
toward her future destiny. Cavour could not approve the 
expedition, and he was not prepared to condemn it. He 
therefore adopted the plan of secretly conniving at the 
preparations, at the same time holding Piedmont officially 
aloof from all connection with it. Thus he could assure 
the powers that Piedmont had nothing to do with it. If it 
should fail, he could not be reproached, whereas if successful, 
he might profit by it. He had need of all his customary 
wariness in this juncture. 

On May 5, 1860, the expedition of " The Thousand," the 
" Red Shirts," embarked from Genoa in two steamers. These 
were the volunteers, nearly 1,150 men, whom Garibaldi's 
fame had caused to rush into the new adventure, an adventure 
that seemed at the moment one of utter folly. The King of 
Naples had 24,000 troops in Sicily and 100,000 more on 
the mainland. The odds against success seemed overwhelm- 
ing. But fortune favored the brave. After a campaign 
of a few weeks, in which he was several times in great danger, 
and was only saved by the most reckless fighting, Garibaldi 
stood master of the island, helped by the Sicilian insurgents, 
by volunteers who had flocked from the mainland, and by 



GARIBALDI CONQUERS NAPLES 235 

the incompetency of the commanders of the Neapolitan 
troops. Audacity had won the victory. He assumed the 
position of Dictator in Sicily in the name of Victor Em- 
manuel II (August 5, 1860). 

Garibaldi now crossed the straits to the mainland de- Conquest 
termined to conquer the entire Kingdom of Naples (August 
19, 1860). The King still had an army of 100,000 men, of Naples, 
but it had not even the strength of a frail reed. There was 
practically no bloodshed. The Neapolitan Kingdom was 
not overthrown ; it collapsed. Treachery, desertion, corrup- 
tion did the work. On September 6th, Francis II left 
Naples for Gaeta and the next day Garibaldi entered it by 
rail with only a few attendants, and drove through the streets 
amid a pandemonium of enthusiasm. In less than five months 
he had conquered a kingdom of 11,000,000 people, an 
achievement unique in modern history. 

Garibaldi now began to talk of pushing on to Rome. To Garibaldi 
Cavour the situation seemed full of danger. Rome was . , 
occupied by a French garrison. An attack upon it would Rome, 
almost necessarily mean an attack upon France. A clash 
between Garibaldi's followers and the French troops which 
were maintaining the Pope's power in Rome would probably 
bring an intervention of Napoleon, this time against the 
Italians. There must, therefore, be no attack upon Rome. 
But while Rome itself and its immediate neighborhood must 
be preserved inviolate for the Pope, Cavour did not think 
that the two eastern provinces of the Papal States, Umbria 
and the Marches, need be. They desired annexation to Pied- 
mont and were only kept down by an army of volunteers, 
drawn from Ireland, Austria, France and other Catholic 
countries. Ought people who wished to be free from the 
Pope's rule to be kept in subjection by an army of 
mercenaries.'^ 

Cavour felt that Victor Emmanuel must act. It would Interven- 

not do to leave Garibaldi to act as he wished, for that would *^°^ °^ 

. Piedmont, 
mean an attack upon Rome and probably upon Venetia, 



236 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

and that would range Italy against, not only France, but 
Austria, two great empires, and everything that had been 
so painfully accomplished would be imperiled. To prevent 
Garibaldi's advance which, once under way, would be beyond 
control, Victor Emmanuel must take charge of the revolu- 
tion in southern Italy. Yet if Victor Emmanuel's troops 
entered the Papal States all the Catholic countries of Europe, 
outraged at the despoiling of the Pope, might intervene 
and undo what had been already done. Cavour believed 
that if he left the Pope unmolested in Rome, Napo- 
leon would have no objection to the rest of the Papal States 
going into the new kingdom, if the population desired it. 
In this estimate he was correct. Understanding finally that 
Napoleon approved, if only the thing were done quickly, 
Victor Emmanuel's army crossed into the Papal States and 
defeated the Papal troops at Castelfidardo (September 18th, 
1860). They then entered the territory of Naples. The 
climax to all this unification movement was now at hand. 
On October 11, 1860, Parliament voted overwhelmingly in 
favor of the annexation of all the provinces in central and 
southern Italy whose people should declare in favor of it 
by plebiscite. The plebiscite took place in the Kingdom of 
The annex- Naples on October 21-22, I860, and was overwhelmingly in 

a ion e fg^y^j. ^f annexation. On the mainland approximately 
Kingdom ^^ "^ 

of Naples 1,300,000 voted yes, 10,000 no ; in Sicily 432,000 yes, 600 no. 

and of A few days later the Pope's former subjects in the Marches 

Umbria and ^^^^^ f^j, annexation by 133,000 to 1,200; and in Umbria 

1)116 

Marches. ^3^ 97,000 to 380. Majorities so staggering showed how 
unanimous was the desire for unification. 

After having conquered the Papal army at Castelfidardo, 
Victor Emmanuel had advanced with his army into the 
Kingdom of Naples for the double purpose of defeating 
the army still under Francis II at Capua and Gaeta, 
which Garibaldi had not been able to conquer, and of 
taking the direction of aff^airs of state out of the hands 
of Garibaldi who, successful in war, was eminently lacking 




TT I ^■^rmtxatwn I/) Sardinia', votfdiy 
^JWmcites, Mar. //.&/S, ma 

YfT I ATmmMii/)n t^ Sardi/ua, votedbr 
^^^^ pybiscUes, Mv. J^. & 5, 1860. 

I Anneantim to Sardinia, votedbr 
J Pl£hiscites; Oct. 2}¥, mo 

I y-r I :dnnexMipn to Kin 
I— ^^— ' VotedhrP/MiseiJes, ' 

r=vf1 dnnexalii>n./oKimd^mofJfMr, 
•-5^^ VMed'hy PlehtMite, Oct.2,!870. 

r^n Ceded to France, March. I860. 
I^nl r^^.?<^ tfi France, March, MO. 



THE KINGDOM OF ITALY PROCLAIMED 237 

in political sagacity. It was imperative that Victor Em- 
manuel's authority should be supreme in Naples, that he 
might control the evolution of events. Both purposes were 
now achieved. The troops of Francis II were defeated 
at Capua on the first and second of November, and Siege of 
the siege of Gaeta, where Francis took his last stand, "^"^• 
began. 

Garibaldi had demanded the resignation of Cavour from 
Victor Emmanuel and seemed disposed to insist upon certain 
conditions before handing over his conquest to him. The 
King's attitude was firm. He declined to consider the dis- 
missal of Cavour. Moreover, now that Victor Emmanuel was 
himself in the Kingdom of Naples with a large army, and was 
backed by the vote of the Parliament and the plebiscites 
favoring annexation. Garibaldi yielded. On November 7th, 
Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi drove together through the 
streets of Naples. The latter refused all rewards and honors 
and with only a little money and a bag of seed beans for his 
farm he sailed away to Caprera. Gaeta fell on February 
13, 1861, and the King fled to Rome, entering upon a 
life of exile which was to end only with his death in 
1894. 

On the 18th of February, 1861, a new Parliament, repre- The 
senting all Italy except Venetia and Rome, met in Turin. ^^^ °™ 
The Kingdom of Sardinia now gave way to the Kingdom of proclaimed. 
Italy, proclaimed March 17th. Victor Emmanuel II was de- 
clared " by the grace of God and the will of the nation. King 
of Italy." 

A new kingdom, comprising a population of about twenty- 
two millions, had arisen during a period of eighteen months, 
and now took its place among the powers of Europe. The 
Pope refused to recognize this " creation of revolution," 
and excommunicated the criminal invaders of his states. 
Victor Emmanuel he denounced as " forgetful of every reli- 
gious principle, despising every right, trampling upon every 
law." Against his assumption of the title of King of Italy, 



238 CREATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



The 

kingdom 
still in- 
complete. 



The 

question of 
Home. 



with which he has sought to seal his " sacrilegious usurpa- 
tions," Pius IX formally protested.^ 

But the Kingdom of Italy was still incomplete. Venetia 
was still Austrian and the Patrimony of St. Peter was still 
subject to the Pope. This was a strip along the western 
coast, between Tuscany and Naples, twenty or thirty miles 
wide, and included the incomparable city of Rome. The 
Pope's power rested on the French garrison. The new 
Kingdom, however, was not strong enough to take Venetia 
from Austria, nor disposed to defy the Emperor Napoleon 
by an attack upon Rome. 

There were, indeed, some Italian nationalists who were 
willing to forego permanently the possession of Rome as 
the capital. D'Azeglio called the desire for it simply " a 
classical fantasticality." Moreover, it was " a malarial 
town fit only for a museum." Not so thought Cavour, who 
believed that " without Rome there was no Italy." He 
declared that now that national independence had been 
secured the great object must be "to make the Eternal 
City, on which rest twenty-five centuries of glory, the splen- 
did capital of the Italian Kingdom." The position of the 
capital was not to be determined by the character of the 
climate or topography, but by moral reasons and the moral 
primacy of Rome among all Italian cities was unquestionable. 
They must have Rome, but on two conditions, that France 
should consent and that the Catholic world should have 
no just ground to believe that it meant the subjection of 
the Pope. Cavour hoped that the Pope would be willing 
to give up his temporal power on the guarantee that his 
spiritual authority should be carefully guarded and even 
extended. The principle of " a free church in a free state " 
absorbed his thought at this time. At his request Parlia- 
ment voted the principle that Rome should be the capital of 
Italy, a solemn official declaration from which there could 
be no retreat. This was Cavour's last great act, for he 
'■ Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, II, 130. 



THE DEATH OF CAVOUR 239 

now fell ill. Overwork, the extraordinary pressure under 
which he had for months been laboring, brought on in- 
somnia ; finally fever developed and he died on the morning Death of 
of June 6th, 1861, in the very prime of life, for he was only Cavour. 
fifty-one years of age. 

" Cavour," said Lord Palmerston, in the British House of 
Commons, " left a name ' to point a moral and adorn a 
tale.' The moral was, that a man of transcendent talent, 
indomitable industry, inextinguishable patriotism, could over- 
come difficulties which seemed insurmountable, and confer 
the greatest, the most inestimable benefits on his country. 
The tale with which his memory would be associated was the 
most extraordinary, the most romantic, in the annals of the 
world. A people who had seemed dead had arisen to new 
and vigorous life, breaking the spell which bound it, and 
showing itself worthy of a new and splendid destiny." ^ 

Throughout his life Cavour remained faithful to his funda- 
mental political principle, government by parliament and 
by constitutional forms. Urged at various times to assume 
a dictatorship he said he had no confidence in dictatorships. 
" I always feel strongest," he said, " when Parliament is 
sitting." " I cannot betray my origin, deny the principles of 
all my life," he wrote in a private letter not intended for 
the public. " I am the son of liberty and to it I owe all 
that I am. If a veil is to be placed on its statue, it is not 
for me to do it." 

* Quoted by Cesaresco: Cavour, 216. 



CHAPTER XI 

BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

Reaction I^ 1848 and 1849 the reformers of Germany, as of other 

aft ifi4q countries, had made a vigorous effort to effect profound 
alterations in the political and social institutions of their 
country. Momentarily successful, their day of power proved 
brief, and by 1850 the old authorities were once more solidly 
established in their old positions. A practical absolutism 
reigned again throughout most of central Europe. In place 
of the German unity so long desired and for which the 
Frankfort Parliament had struggled with such earnest futil- 
ity, the old Diet of 1815, slow, cumbrous, impotent save 
for repression, quietly slipped back unto the familiar, well- 
worn grooves, resuming its sessions in May 1851, and de- 
voting its attention to the removal of the debris left by the 
revolutionary hurricane which had just swept by. A period 
of reaction began again, even more far-reaching in its scope 
than that which had followed the Congress of Vienna of 
1815. This period may be considered to have lasted from 
the diplomatic defeat of Prussia at Olmiitz in 1850 to 1858, 
when William I assumed the Regency of Prussia, and 
to 1859 when Austria, now as formerly the strong tower 
of ultra-conservatism, suffered an important diminution of 
power and prestige in the military defeats in Italy which have 
been described above. 

During this period the work of 1848 and 1849 was undone 
wherever possible, and a persecution of Liberals carried out 
so thoroughly that tens of thousands left the country. This 
inspired some alarm at first, but consolation was found in 
the thought that the removal of these disturbers of the 
public mind would only leave the fatherland politically in 

240 



PRUSSIA RECEIVES A CONSTITUTION 241 

peace. This was the beginning of the large German emigra- 
tion to the United States, which has since attained such 
impressive proportions and been attended by such im- 
portant consequences. Austria and Prussia took the lead 
in the familiar work of repression. 

The King of Prussia, Frederick William IV, had? as we Prussia a 

have seen, granted a Constitution and created a Parliament ^^"^"^^'j'* 

=' ... . tional biit 

during the recent convulsion, but it quickly became evident not a pat- 
that he had no intention of establishing the parliamentary lianientary 
system as it had been developed in England. He did not for ^''^''^• 
a moment propose to weaken the royal power by dividing it 
with any assembly, even with one which, like this, represented 
only the rich. No new taxes or laws might be passed without 
the consent of the new chamber, but old ones might be 
continued without that consent. The Chamber had no con- 
trol whatever over the ministry. With machinery like this 
Parliament could not have prevented reaction even had it 
so desired ; but constituted as it was, it became itself one 
of the instruments of reaction. 

That reaction began at once. The King was urged to 
abolish the Constitution outright, but this, mindful of his 
oath, he never did. However, a method of " interpreting " 
it, virtually achieved the same end. The ministers gained 
great skill in the art of ruling with the Constitution against 
the Constitution. Laws which they disapproved were simply 
not executed or their contents were by " interpretation " 
molded to the heart's desire. The Constitution had pro- 
claimed the right of association and public meeting, but as 
a matter of fact this right was permitted only to those 
favorable to the Government. Public meetings were watched 
by agents of the Government, who, on the least pretext, 
might dissolve them. Everywhere the police were active 
and unscrupulous. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment were 
frequent. A Berlin police regulation in 1851 permitted the The police 
application to prisoners of torture, deprivation of light, system, 
the strait-jacket, and corporal punishment up to forty 



M2 BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

strokes. Men who were supposed to be democrats were 
hounded in every way. " No lawyer would give me work," 
wrote one of them ; " no business man had the courage to 
seek the aid of my legal knowledge ; no editor would consent 
to publish a book of mine." With great difficulty he suc- 
ceeded in bringing out three novels. At once the Govern- 
ment forbade their introduction into public libraries, forbade 
their sale. Certain physicians were denied the certificates 
necessary to the practice of their profession because, as 
democrats, their " morality " could not be guaranteed. 
Abuses of power succeeded each other rapidly. " God in 
Heaven," wrote Bunsen, " what a frightful situation for 
Germany ! " The mails were not respected. Postmen were 
ordered not to deliver letters to Liberals. Even reactionaries 
themselves felt the pinch at times. " I cannot write you 
much about politics," Bismarck informed his wife, " for all 
letters are opened." And again, " Do not forget, when 
3'OU write me, that your letters are not read simply by 
myself but are also read at the post office, by spies of 
every feather; be, without exception, prudent in your 
remarks." 

The censorship abolished by the Constitution was not re- 
stored, but the same end was otherwise achieved. Methods 
were followed in this respect, as in many others, which were 
copied from Napoleon III, who was applying them success- 
fully in France. Much ingenious reasoning was displayed 
at times by government officials. In one case the police 
announced that the law permitted the publication of news- 
papers but not their sale, and thus one Liberal paper was 
suppressed. By such means virtual absolutism was restored 
in Prussia after the liberal awakening of 1848 and 1849. 
No relief was found in the Chamber, for the Government 
secured large and dependent majorities there, by the same 
methods which Napoleon III used in France, by official 
candidacies and by various forms of bribery and intimida- 
tion. The system was thoroughly established. Prussia, 



ECONOMIC EVOLUTION OF PRUSSIA 243 

with a Constitution, was really ruled without regard to its 
provisions. 

The ffoveming forces were the King and the landed nobil- ^^^ P^^^" 
ity. These were the " Junkers," whom Bismarck later called ^^^^ 
the " pariahs of modem civilization," hide-bound conserva- 
tives, completely dominated by the ideas of old-time feudal- 
ism. The House of Lords was now one of their seats of 
power. Indignant at the former freeing of their serfs they 
labored with much success to regain old rights, such as the 
police power on their estates, and hunting privileges. They 
had a monopoly of the higher grades in the army. All these 
measures irritated various classes of society and unrest, not 
peace, was the ominous result. No wonder that Bernhardi ex- 
claimed, " The Constitution is nothing but a name," and that 
another who lived through it all wrote a little later, " The 
period from 1849 to 1858 was the most shameful in the his- 
tory of Prussia." 

But signs were not lacking of the dawning of a new day. 
The economic evolution of the country was proceeding on 
the whole unimpeded and quietly, and that evolution tended 
directly toward liberty, for it meant the transformation 
of Germany from an agricultural, feudal, and patriarchal 
into a great industrial nation. Even the Government itself 
facilitated this transformation which was in the end to be 
so prejudicial to its system, imitating in this, as in so 
many other respects, the example of Napoleon III, who 
thought that the best way to make people forget their loss 
of liberty was to enable them to get rich. But in the main 
this transformation was effected, not by governmental meas- 
ures, but by the unseen, unconscious operation of the ordinary 
laws of business. 

This economic transformation is the most important Economic 
feature of German history in the decade from 1850 to 1860, *'^^"^" 
for it began the creation of that industrial Germany which is 
so tremendous a fact in the world of to-day. This transforma- 
tion was apparent in many ways. Rich deposits of gold 



244 BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

had been discovered in California in 1848, and in Australia 
in 1851. It has been estimated that the world's production 
of the precious metal was about four times as great in 1856 
as in 1847. The increase in the quantity of the medium of 
exchange had, among other important results, for Germany 
this, the sudden creation of a large number of banks and 
business corporations. In Bavaria, for instance, only six stock 
companies with a capital of five millions had been founded 
between 1839 and 1848; but from 1849 to 1858 forty-four 
were established with a capital of one hundred and seventy 
millions. The capital of the banks created in Germany 
from 1853 to 1857 aggregated about 750 millions. All this 
meant an immense increase in the resources available for 
industry, 
'ndustrial Germany had for various reasons remained industrially 

feveiop- ^^^ behind neighboring countries, particularly France and 
England. Her population was largely rural, two-thirds of 
her inhabitants were agriculturalists. Whatever industries 
existed were small. Cities were few and unimportant. Ber- 
lin, the capital of Prussia, had a population of only 150,000, 
and in the entire Confederation there were hardly twenty 
cities of more than 10,000 inhabitants. Both exports and 
imports were few. Germany sold little but raw materials. 
' All this was rapidly changed. Capital being easily pro- 

cured, hundreds of new enterprises were started. Particu- 
ularly was the exploitation of the immense mineral resources 
of the country, thus far largely neglected, undertaken with 
great energy. Coal mines were opened up, factories and 
foundries arose on all sides. Alfred Krupp made the steel 
foundry, begun by his father in 1810, one of the most famous 
establishments of the kind in the world. Workmen, attracted 
by higher wages than could be procured in agriculture, flocked 
to the cities, which increased rapidly. Economists state that 
the period of speculation succeeding the revolution of 1848 
was the most remarkable Germany has ever seen. The Ger- 
mans took naturallj^ to modern business, showing their usual 



THE RISE OF THE BOURGEOISIE 245 

qualities of patience, order, adaptability, and an abounding ^ 
faith in the advantages to be derived from the application 
to economic life of the discoveries of science and from the use 
of scientific methods. The mileage of railroads rapidly in- 
creased, in Prussia alone in a few years from 114 miles to over 
800, and the number of travelers increased fourfold. 

All this had important political and intellectual conse- Rise of a 
quences. It meant the rise of a modern capitalist class, a ''^^althy 
rich bourgeoisie, which would insist and which would have ^j^^g 
the power to insist that the state should no longer be run 
along medieval lines for the benefit of a feudal monarchy, 
and a feudal nobility of landlords. And the result of this 
economic revolution was to broaden men's horizon, and to 
weaken the local states-rights feeling. Manufacturers and 
merchants were anxious for the widest market, and impatient 
of laws and institutions that hindered business. They saw 
the inconveniences that flowed from the existing political 
organization of Germany, the petty state animosities and 
the powerlessness of the Confederation abroad. They wished 
a reorganization of the country so that Germany should 
have the weight in international affairs that was necessary for 
the development of her wealth. That they might compete 
in the world markets they must have the support of the Gov- 
ernment. The Government of the Confederation was impo- 
tent. This growing class therefore would hail with enthu- 
siasm any attempt to strengthen it. Thus business was 
undermining the established order in politics. The require- 
ments of modern industrialism were potent factors in the 
ultimate creation of German unity. 

At the same time a similar trend was unmistakable in Intellectual 
the intellectual evolution of Germany, and was shown in ^^ ^^^ ^' 
the various fields of theology, science, history and litera- 
ture. From the romantic, the metaphysical, the specula- 
tive people they had been, Germans were becoming practical, 
positive, realist. The boldest innovations in the economic 
life were matched by the boldest discoveries in science. A 



246 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Influence 
of events 
in Italy 
upon 
German 
thought. 



The 

National 

Union. 



new heaven and a new earth were taking the place of the 
old. The German intellect was showing its enterprise, its 
daring in every line, and was heaping up great riches. An in- 
tellectual environment was being created in which the great 
realist of the century in Germany could breathe and work 
successfully. It would be difficult to show all this except 
at length, which precludes such an undertaking from this 
book. But the fact remains that Schopenhauer in philoso- 
phy, and Helmholtz and Virchow in science, were laying 
intellectual foundations for the unification of Germany and 
the hegemony of Prussia.' The historians of the period, 
Sybel, Treitschke, Droysen, Freytag, produced histories in 
abundance which were really great patriotic pamphlets, 
therefore less valuable as histories than as organs for 
shaping public opinion toward great and decisive action in 
the field of politics. They were vigorously patriotic, 
nationalistic in tone, Prussian in sympathy. Even Momm- 
sen and Curtius, who wrote in the field of ancient history, 
distinctly revealed the current preconceptions and aspira- 
tions of the day.^ 

Opinion in Germany was greatly stimulated by the events 
in Italy. The Italian war of 1859, and the formation of 
the Italian Kingdom exerted a remarkable influence upon 
events outside of the peninsula. Here was a successful 
application of the doctrine of nationalities. Might not the 
precedent receive wider application? Poland, Denmark, 
Germany felt a powerful impulsion from beyond the Alps. 
This influence was shown in the very month of Villafranca. 
For July 1859 saw the genesis in Hanover of a new patriotic 
society, called the National Union, whose purpose was 
to create a national party for the purpose of " achiev- 
ing the unity of the fatherland and the development of 
its liberties." The society soon spread throughout Germany. 
Unity and liberty were its watchwords. Did not the Italian 

* Denis, La Fondation de I'Empire AUemand, Chap. III. 
^'Guilland, L'AIIemagne Nouvelle et ses Historians. 



WILLIIm I OF I*RUSSIA 247 

campaign prove the necessity of the former? If Napoleon 
III could invade Italy, might he not with equal ease invade 
Germany? There must be a thorough military reorganiza- 
tion so that Germany should be safe from possible aggres- 
sion, and to accomplish this the Confederation, as a whole, 
must first be reorganized. Cavour was, in the opinion of 
the members of the National Union, the model whom German 
statesmen should imitate. Prussia ought to do for Germany 
what Piedmont had done for Italy. Let her become frankly 
liberal, then Liberals everywhere would support her, and she 
could make the fatherland. This was not the method fol- 
lowed, as we shall see. Germany was made by an autocratic 
not by a liberal government. And the reason was that the 
conservative class was stronger in Germany than in Italy, 
and happened to find two able leaders, William I and 
Bismarck, as the Liberals in Italy had found two of their 
kind, Victor Emmanuel and Cavour. Though the National 
Liberals in Germany influenced public opinion extensively 
and thus facilitated in the end the rise of German unity, 
they clashed with those who actually carried out the work, 
and were themselves defeated. The achievement of German 
unity was to be no imitation of an Italian example. 

The full import of all these changes in the economic life 
and in the intellectual outlook, this fermentation of ideas, 
was shortly to be shown in the reign, destined to prove most 
illustrious, of William I of Prussia. The preliminary stage 
was over, the period of action was about to begin. 

In 1857, Frederick William IV became, by reason of mental William I, 
disease, incapable of administering the Government. As the ^''^'^''^^^S- 
King had no son, his brother, William I, became his represent- 
ative. The following year William became Regent, which 
gave him complete independence of action. It was recognized 
that the King would never recover. He died in January 
1861, and William became sovereign. The accession of the 
new prince was hailed with great enthusiasm, so deep and 



248 BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

general had been the disappointment in Prussia over the 
timidity, the reactionary character, and the fruitlessness of 
his predecessor's rule. The new ruler was intellectually the 
very antipodes of his brother, slow, solid, persistent, firm, 
rather than brilliant and imaginative. Common sense was his 
strongest quality as versatility had been that of his brother. 
William was the son of the famous Queen Louise, was born 
in 1797, and had served in the campaign against Napoleon 
in 1814. He was now over sixty years of age. His entire 
lifetime had been spent in the army, which he loved passion- 
ately. In military matters his thorough knowledge and 
competence were recognized. He had resented deeply the 
action of his brother at Olmiitz, action dictated by the 
military weakness of Prussia. William believed that Prus- 
sia's destiny depended upon her army. The army was neces- 
sary for his pui^ose, which was to put Prussia at the head 
of Germany. " Now," he had written in 1849, " whoever 
wishes to rule Germany must conquer it; and that cannot be 
done with phrases." The mobilization of the Prussian troops 
in 1859 convinced him more than ever that the army needed 
strengthening. He now brought forward a definite military 
programme. 
The Prussia had been the first state, and was thus far the only 

one, to adopt the principle that all male citizens must be 
soldiers. By the law of 1814 universal compulsory three 
years' service in the active army was established. The 
soldier then passed into the reserve for two years, which 
meant that he would be summoned to military exercise for 
several weeks each year; he then passed into the landwehr 
for several years (from the ages of twenty-six to thirty- 
nine), receiving some little training intermittently. Then 
he passed into the landsturm, where he remained until the 
age of fifty, to be called out only in the case of direst neces- 
sity. This system had been in existence for forty-six years, 
with only slight modification. But the system had not, in 
practice, been thoroughly carried out. No account had been 



Prussian 
army 



ARMY REFORMS M9 

taken of the increase of population. In 1820 the popula- 
tion of Prussia was about 12,000,000. The number of 
yearly recruits had been fixed at 40,000 and regiments 
for that number had been established. But in 1860 the 
population was about 18,000,000, and if all able-bodied 
men of military age were recruited, as by law they should 
be, there would be 63,000. As a matter of fact, however, The 

the number of recruits had been kept at 40,000, which meant ° ^f^ ^^ . 

^ \ service not 

that many thousand young men, by law required to serve enforced, 
three years under the colors, had been excused in practice 
from service, and that others had been required to serve 
only two years. This kept the anny down to about 130,000 
active soldiers on a peace footing, 215,000 in time of war. 

William I believed such a condition full of danger for 
Prussia. Considering himself primarily a soldier, the first 
soldier of Prussia, and responsible for her defense, he re- 
solved to carry through certain reforms. In 1859 he ap- 
pointed Albrecht von Roon Minister of War, in politics a 
convinced reactionary, in military matters a man of great Army 
knowledge and ability. In 1860 a plan for the reform of 
the army was submitted to the Prussian Parliament. Hence- 
forth the law requiring universal military service was to be 
rigorously enforced. 

This would mean 63,000 recruits each year instead of 

40,000, and would give an army of 190,000 in time of 

peace, 450,000 in time of war, the service in the reserve being 

lengthened from two to four years. Thus the military 

forces of Prussia would be doubled. To do this necessitated 

the creation of new regiments with their officers and colors. 

This would involve an increase in the budget, which could Opposition 

only be sanctioned bv Parliament. But the Chamber of ° ^ 
•^ , -^ . . . Chamber. 

Deputies was from the beginning opposed to this change, 
though it voted appropriations once on the understand- 
ing that they were provisional only. The Government 
acted as if they were permanent. In 1862 the Chamber re- 
fused the moneys entirely. This meant that the new regi- 



250 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Determina- 
tion of 
William I. 



Otto von 

Bismarck- 

Sohon- 

hausen, 

1815-1898. 



merits must be disbanded, their officers dismissed, that what 
had been done must be undone, that the royal plan of army 
reform must be abandoned, although it had been put into 
force at least provisionally, that the Government must, in 
a most conspicuous matter, retrace its steps. Over this 
question a bitter and prolonged controversy arose between 
the Crown and the Chamber of Deputies, each side growing 
stiffer as the contest proceeded. The King was absolutely 
resolved not to abate one jot from his demands. He be- 
lieved that the organization of the army, and the system 
of national defense belonged exclusively to himself, as they 
had undoubtedly to previous Prussian kings ; that the fact 
that in 1850 a Constitution had come into existence creating 
a Parliament in no respect altered the situation ; that indeed 
the right had been expressly confirmed by that Constitution ; 
that Parliament was in duty bound to vote all appropriations 
necessary for him to discharge his duties as supreme ex- 
ecutive and commander-in-chief. Parliament, on the other 
hand, held that by the Constitution all grants must be 
voted by it, that if it were bound to vote them on the mere 
demand of the King its discretion and power would simply 
disappear entirely. Parliament must, in the interests of 
the people, insist upon the preservation intact of its dele- 
gated powers, and the control of the purse was the chief 
of these. A deadlock ensued. The King was urged to 
abolish Parliament altogether. This he would not do be- 
cause he had sworn to support the Constitution which es- 
tablished it. He thought of abdicating. He never thought 
of abandoning the reform. He had written out his abdica- 
tion and signed it, and it was lying upon his desk when 
he at last consented to call to the ministry as a final experi- 
ment a new man, known for his boldness, his independence, 
his devotion to the monarchy. Otto von Bismarck. Bis- 
marck was appointed President of the Ministry September 
23, 1862: on that very day the Chamber rejected anew 
the credits asked for by the King for the new regiments. 



BISMARCK'S POLITICAL PRINCIPLES 251 

The conflict entered upon its most acute phase and a new 
era began for Prussia and for the world. 

In this Interview Bismarck told the King frankly that he 
was willing to carry out his policy whether the Parliament 
agreed to it or not, " I will rather perish with the King," 
he said, " than forsake your Majesty in the contest with 
parliamentary government." His boldness determined the 
King to tear up the paper containing his abdication and to 
continue the struggle with the Chamber of Deputies. 

The man who now entered upon the stage of European Bismarck's 

politics was one of the most original and salient characters ^ ^"'^^^'^s 
^ ° _ career, 

of his century. Born in 1815, he came of a noble family in 

Brandenburg, and as a young man seemed completely imbued 
with all the narrowness of his order, its vigorous insistence 
upon the preservation of existing institutions, its tenacious 
adherence to forms of belief that had long been undermined 
in Europe. Receiving a university education, he entered 
the civil service of Prussia only shortly to turn from 
its monotonous routine with invincible disgust. He then 
settled upon his father's estate as a country squire. For 
years he gave himself up to the problem of retrieving 
the family fortune, and with ultimate success. In 1847 he 
emerged from his country life and began his political career 
as a member of the United Diet. He now had an opportu- 
nity to expound his political views, which he did with 
emphasis. No compromise with the Revolution was his 
watchword. More royalist than the King he resented 
the King's act of granting a Constitution to Prussia but, 
once granted, he would abide by it. But he had no notion 
that the Constitution should transform Prussia into a state 
like England, the model which Liberals were constantly urging 
other people to follow. " The references to England are 
our misfortune," he said. If Prussians were only English- 
men, and possessed all the institutions and qualities of Eng- Bismarck's 
lishmen, then " you might govern us in the English fashion." political 
Bismarck's political Ideas centered in his ardent belief in 0P^^^°"^* 



252 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



the Prussian monarchy. It had been the Prussian kings, 
not the Prussian people, who had made Prussia great. This, 
the great historic fact, must be preserved. What Prussian 
kings had done, they still would do. A reduction of royal 
power would only be damaging to the state. " The Prussian 
Crown must not allow itself," he said, " to be thrust into 
the powerless position of the English Crown, which seems 
more like a smartly decorative cupola on the state edifice, 
than its central pillar of support, as I consider ours." 
When the democrats declared that England had been made 
great by democracy he flatly contradicted them. England 
had grown great under an aristocratic constitution. " It 
remains to be seen whether this reformed constitution (1832) 
will maintain itself for centuries as did the earlier rule of 
the English aristocracy." He defended vehemently the 
Prussian nobility, a class at that time bitterly attacked. 
By them, and by their blood, the Prussian state had been 
built up. Bismarck was the uncompromising foe of the 
attempts made in 1848 to achieve German unity, because 
he believed those attempts involved a diminution in the 
importance of Prussia, and he was above all a Prussian. 
" The Frankfort crown may be very brilliant," he said, 
" but the gold which would give truth to its brilliancy can 
only be gained by melting down the Prussian crown," some- 
thing he could not contemplate without horror. " The 
scheme for a union annihilates the integrity of the Prussian 
kingdom . . . Prussians we are and Prussians we will 
remain." His attitude toward the assembly, of which he 
was a member, is shown by the words, " I know that what 
I have said to you will have no influence on your votes, 
mentary in- but I am equally convinced that your votes will be as 
stitutions. completely without influence on the course of events." No 
European state had suff'ered a more complete humilia- 
tion than Prussia at Olmiitz, yet Bismarck vigorously de- 
fended the action of the Government. " Prussia ought to 
unite with Austria in order to crush the common enemy, 



His 

attitude 

toward 

parlia- 



BISMARCK'S DISLIKE OF DEMOCRACY 253 

the Revolution." " I regard Austria as the representative 
and inheritor of an ancient German power which has often 
gloriously wielded the German sword." The reason for this 
defense of Olmiitz is highly significant. " The only sound 
principle of action for a great state is political egoism, and 
not romanticism, and it is unworthy of such a state to strive 
for anything which does not directly concern it." ^ A war 
with Austria in 1850 would have meant the ruin of Prussia. 
Therefore egoism, the sole legitimate motive force in politics, 
justified the convention of Olmiitz. " According to my con- 
viction," he said in a speech which he incorporated in part 
more than forty years later in his Reminiscences, " Prussian 
honor does not consist in Prussia's playing the Don Quixote 
all over Germany for the benefit of mortified parliament 
celebrities who consider their local constitution in danger. 
I look for Prussian honor in Prussia's abstinence before His 
all things from every shameful union with democracy ; in hatred of 
Prussia's refusal to allow, in the present and all other 
questions, anything to happen in Germany without her 
consent; and in the joint execution by the two protecting 
powers of Germany, with equal authority, of whatsoever 
they, Prussia and Austria, after joint independent delibera- 
tion, consider reasonable and politically justifiable." 

By such utterances, poorly delivered, for he was no 
orator, Bismarck made himself immensely disliked by 
all Liberals. On the other hand, such downright and un- 
compromising flouting of all the popular phrases of the 
day, such unqualified and defiant adherence to monarchy 
and aristocracy commended him to the King, who appointed 
him, in 1851, Prussian delegate to the Diet at Frankfort. 
Bismarck's career now broadened, and during the next eight 
years he studied and practised the art of diplomacy, in 

* Bismarck's political principles may be best studied in the speeches 
which he delivered during the years 1847-1851, and which may be found 
in Kohl, Die politischen Reden des Fiirsten Bismarck, Vol. I. Par- 
ticularly interesting are the speeches of September 24, 1849, and Decem- 
ber 3, 1850. 



254) BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 

which he was later to win many sweeping victories. He 
made the acquaintance of all the important statesmen and 
politicians of Germany and studied their characters and 
ambitions. 
Bismarck He had not been long in Frankfort before his views in 

in the Diet, regard to Austria changed. He came to regard her as the 
constant and determined enemy of Prussia, and to believe 
that her policy was to reduce Prussia to the position of a 
mere satellite, and Bismarck had no notion that a nation 
of 17,000,000 should occupy that position. At once this 
jingo Prussian bent all his energies to convince his superiors 
in Berlin of this fact. He soon saw that, though bound 
together in the same federation, the harmony of the two 
great German powers had been destroyed by the events of 
1848. As early as 1853 he said in a report to Berlin 
that there was not room in Germany for the two powers — 
that one or the other must bend. Three years later he 
expressed his opinion even more clearly, " I only desire to 
express my conviction that ere long we shall have to fight 
Austria for our very existence; it is not in our power to 
avert that eventuality, for the course of events in Germany 
can lead to no other result." * In 1859, as he was leaving 
the Diet for the mission to St. Petersburg, he summed up 
the situation, " I see in our federal alliance that Prussia 
has an infirmity which sooner or later we shall have to 
heal ferro et igni, unless we begin in good time to seek a 
remedy for it." " Bismarck," wrote the Austrian delegate at 
the Diet, " believes that Prussia forms the center of the 
world." He did so regard it, and his activity largely made it 
so for others. 

Such was the man, who in 1862 at the age of forty-seven, 
accepted the position of President of the Prussian Ministry 
at a time when King and Parliament confronted each other 
in angry deadlock, and when no other politician would accept 
the leadership. For four years, from 1862 to 1866, the 
^Quoted by Murdock, The Reconstruction of Europe, 190. 



THE PERIOD OF CONFLICT 255 

conflict continued. The Constitution was not abolished, The 

Parliament was called repeatedly, the Lower House voted P^^^° ^ 

year after year against the budget, supported in this by 

the voters, the Upper House voted for it, and the King acted 

as if this made it legal. The period was one of virtual 

dictatorship and real suspension of parliamentary life. The 

King continued to collect the taxes, the army was thoroughly 

reorganized and absolutely controlled by the authorities, and 

the Lower House had no mode of opposition save the verbal 

one, which was entirely ineffective. 

Thus the increase in the army was secured. But an army Army 

is a mere means to an end. The particular end that Bis- J^eform 

• P r^ • 1 carried 

marck had m view was the creation oi German unity by through. 

means of Prussia and for the advantage of Prussia. There 
must be no absorption of Prussia in Germany, as there had 
been of Piedmont in Italy, Piedmont as a separate state 
entirely disappearing. And in Bismarck's opinion this unity 
could only be achieved by war. 

He boldly denied in Parliament the favorite theory of the 
Liberals, that Prussia was to be made great by a liberal, free, 
parliamentary government, by setting an example of pro- 
gressiveness, as Piedmont had done, which would rally Ger- 
mans in other states about her, rather than about their own 
governments. In what was destined to be the most famous 
speech of his life he declared in 1863 that what Germans 
cared about was not the liberalism of Prussia but her power. 
Prussia must concentrate her forces and hold herself ready 
for the favorable moment. The boundaries of the kingdom, 
as determined by the Congress of Vienna, were not favorable 
to a sound political life. " Not by speeches and majority 
votes are the great questions of the day decided — that was 
the great blunder of 1848 and 1849 — ^but by blood and 
iron." ~-~- ~ 



This " blood and iron " policy was bitterly denounced by " Blood 
Liberals, but Bismarck ignored their criticisms and shortly ^^^ ^^°^ 
found a chance to begin its application. Displaying re- 



256 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Prussia's 

three 

wars. 



The 

Schleswig- 
Holstein 
question. 



markable diplomatic astuteness and subtlety, unfolding sur- 
prising resourcefulness in using the exceedingly complicated 
international relations of his day in such a way as to 
further his Prussian and German plans, he proceeded to 
reshape Europe in most important particulars. He was 
favored in this by the jealousies of the powers and the 
general incompetence of their ministers. It was fortunate 
for Prussia that at a time when it was directed by one 
of the geniuses of the century, other countries were directed 
by mediocrities. His own ability, great as it was, would 
not alone have sufficed to accomplish the work of the next 
few years. 

The German Empire is the result of the policy of blood 
and iron as carried out by Prussia in three wars which were 
crowded into the brief period of six years, the war with 
Denmark in 1864, with Austria in 1866, and with France 
in 1870, the last two of which were largely the result of his 
will and his diplomatic ingenuity and unscrupulousness, and 
the first of which he exploited consummately for the ad- 
vantage of Prussia. 

The first of these grew out of one of the most complicated 
questions that have ever perplexed diplomatists and statesmen, 
the future of Schleswig and Holstein. These were two duchies 
in the Danish peninsula, which is itself simply an extension 
of the great plain of northern Germany. Holstein was in- 
habited by a population of about 600,000, entirely German; 
Schleswig by a population of from 250,000 to 300,000 Ger- 
mans and 150,000 Danes. These two duchies had for cen- 
turies been united with Denmark, but they did not form 
an integral part of the Danish kingdom. Their relation 
to Denmark was personal, arising from the fact that a Duke 
of Schleswig and Holstein had become King of Denmark, 
just as an Elector of Hanover had become a King of Eng- 
land. The King of Denmark was in the duchies simply 
duke. The Danes naturally wished to make this union a 
real one, to incorporate entirely the duchies with the king- 



THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION 257 

dom. But there were plain obstacles in the way. Holstein 
(not Schleswig) was a part of the German Confederation; 
the King of Denmark as Duke of Holstein was represented 
in the Diet of Frankfort, as were the King of Prussia and 
the Emperor of Austria. Now the Germans in Schleswig 
wished to have that duchy also a part of the German Con- 
federation, and were warmly supported in this desire by 
the public opinion of Germans everywhere. On the other 
hand, the Danes of Schleswig wished to have the duchy 
annexed to Denmark, and were naturally supported in this 
by the Danes of that kingdom. 

The question had long been before Europe, but in 1863 -^-ction of 

it became acute, when on November 13, 1863, the Danish „„„„^^„:„„ 
' 7 " J concerning 

Parliament adopted a new Constitution, which incorporated Schleswig. 
Schleswig with Denmark. Two days later the king, 
Frederick VII, died, but his successor, Christian IX, signed 
the Constitution. What would Germany do.'' Would it 
allow Germans to be annexed to a foreign country out- 
right? The Diet at once protested, and ordered an army 
sent into the duchies to prevent this consummation, and in 
doing this it had the enthusiastic support of public opinion 
throughout Germany. Bismarck, however, declined to join 
in this policy. He saw in the situation a chance for the 
eventual aggrandizement of Prussia, and for a possible 
future quarrel with Austria. He, therefore, wished Prussia 
to follow an independent line. He urged Austria to join with 
Prussia in upholding the London Protocol of 1852, which 
both powers had signed, as had the other powers of Europe, 
a treaty which regulated the succession to the duchies, under 
certain conditions, the main condition being that Christian 
might be King of Denmark and Duke of Schleswig, but that 
the duchy should preserve its separateness from Denmark. 
Bismarck's position was that Austria and Pnissia had a Bismarck's 
right to demand the observance of the treaty which they had ^^ ^^^ 
signed, and that they would support Christian if he would question, 
live up to the conditions. He induced Austria to join 



258 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Prussia 

and 

Austria 

at war 

with 

Denmark. 



him in supporting this Treaty of London, claiming that they 
were simply upholding the sacredness of international agree- 
ments. The two powers proclaimed their intention to adhere 
to that treaty, but demanded that the Danes withdraw the 
recent Constitution, which they declared was in defiance of 
it. The duplicity of Bismarck's policy lay in the fact 
that he had assured himself that the Danes would not make 
this concession, which, moreover, he did not wish them to 
make, as his whole purpose was to pick a quari'el from 
which Prussia might profit. To make assurance doubly 
sure, the ultimatum presented to Denmark demanded the 
, withdrawal within forty-eight hours of the Constitution in- 
corporating Schleswig. This, as a matter of fact, was 
impossible, even if the Danes had unanimously desired it. 
The King could not do this of his own prerogative: he 
must have the assent of his Parliament. His Parliament 
had been dissolved and a new one had not been elected. 
Naturally, this could not be done in two days. At the 
expiration of that time Prussia and Austria declared war 
against Denmark in the name of the Treaty of London of 
1852. But Bismarck knew that a war between two coun- 
tries abrogates existing treaties between them, a fact which 
he was prepared to utilize to Prussia's advantage in time. 
In the name of the Treaty of 1852 he made war against 
Denmark for the real purpose of breaking that very treaty. 
A war between one small state and two large ones could 
not be doubtful. Sixty thousand Pimssians and Austrians 
invaded Denmark in February 1864, and, though their cam- 
paign was not brilliant, they easily won. The only danger 
was in a European intervention. A conference was held in 
London for the purpose of arranging a settlement by di- 
plomacy. But nothing was accomplished. Russia was grate- 
ful for Prussian aid in the recent Polish insurrection ; France 
and England were full of reproaches for each other. In such 
troubled waters Bismarck could fish successfully. He was 
able to block the proposed intervention. The war was 



THE FUTURE OF THE DUCHIES 259 

successful for Prussia and Austria, and Denmark on Octo- 
ber 30, 1864, signed the Treaty of Vienna, whereby she Treaty of 

renounced all rights to Schleswia;, Holstein, and the little Vienna, 

. . i. Oct. 1864. 

duchy of Lauenburg, contiguous to the latter, in favor 

of Austria and Prussia, and agreed to recognize any dis- 
position they should make concerning them. Bismarck later 
regarded his handling of the Schleswig-Holstein matter as 
the diplomatic masterpiece of his career. 

The question now was what should be the future of the ^^^ 

. . . future 

duchies .P Their inhabitants wished to form a separate „ ^^^ 

state under the Duke of Augustenburg and be admitted as duchies, 
such to the German Confederation. The people of Ger- 
many were overwhelmingly in favor of this arrangement, 
and Austria favored it. But Bismarck's ideas were very 
different. He did not care for another German state. 
There were too many already, and this one would only be 
another enemy of Prussia and ally of Austria. Moreover, 
Bismarck wished to annex the duchies wholly or in part to 
Prussia. He desired aggrandizement in general, but this 
particular addition would be especially advantageous, as it 
would lengthen the coast line of Prussia, would bring with 
it several good harbors, notably Kiel, and would enable 
Prussia to expand commercially. Thus the two powers 
were at variance over the disposition of their spoils. Bis- 
marck, recognizing the impossibility of gaining his end 
directly, agreed to recognize the rights of Augustenburg 
on certain conditions, which he knew Augustenburg would 
never accept. Prussia and Austria thus differed from the Friction 

outset as to the future of Schleswie; and Holstein. Sources J^ ^^^"^ 

° Prussia 

of friction were so numerous, tension became so great, that ^nd 

war between them seemed imminent in 1865. But Austria Austria. 

did not feel in condition for war, and, though Bismarck 

favored it, the King of Prussia opposed it. He was 

not yet prepared for a fratricidal contest which did violence 

to his patriotic and national feelings. Consequently, 

the Convention of Gastein was made by the two parties 



260 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Prussia 
acquires 
lauenburg 
by pur- 
chase. 



August 14, 1865. Joint rule was given up in practice, 
though not in principle. The duchies belonged to the two 
powers, but henceforth Austria alone should administer Hol- 
stein and Prussia Schleswig. Lauenburg was sold outright 
to Prussia by Austria for two and a half million thalers. 
This was the first of Prussian annexations. The treaty also 
signified a virtual abandonment of the Duke of Augusten- 
burg. 

Bismarck approved the Treaty of Gastein, because, in his 
opinion, it ended nothing. He called it a mere " stopping 
of cracks." He regarded it simply as a new trick in the 
game with Austria. That the Convention was universally 
denounced abroad and in Germany as merely cold-blooded 
bargaining was a matter of indifference to him. Out of the 
situation which it created he hoped to bring about the war 
with Austria, which he had desired for the past ten years as 
being the only means whereby German unity could be 
achieved by Prussia and for its advantage. In this he 
was successful within a year. There was not room in 
Germany, he thought, for both powers, " one or the other 
must bend." He now directed his attention to the creation 
of an international situation which would leave Austria iso- 
lated in the event of a conflict. He turned to diplomacy, 
and the result was an interview with Napoleon III, and an 
alliance with Italy. The attitude of France he regarded 
as most important. Consequently, he took occasion to 
seek a conference with Napoleon III at Biarritz. The meet- 
meeting at ing at Biarritz (Oct. 1865) has been considered, though in- 
correctly, to have had somewhat the same importance in Ger- 
man history that that of Plombieres has in Italian. What 
passed we know only imperfectly. No formal, written en- 
gagements were made. Bismarck returned with the conviction 
that Napoleon would remain neutral in case of a war between 
Prussia and Austria, that the annexation of Schleswig and 
Holstein would call forth no opposition from him, that he 
would even view it with favor as being in harmony with 



The 



PREPARATIONS FOR WAR WITH AUSTRIA 261 

his favorite doctrine of nationalities. Bismarck told the 
Emperor that the constitution of the German Confedera- 
tion ought to be completely reformed. Napoleon seems to 
have entered no protest. Bismarck, holding that states- 
manship is simply enlightened egoism, believed that in re- 
turn for permission to make these changes France must 
be paid. Consequently, he dangled before the Emperor 
chances of enlarging the boundaries of France, but all 
this was very vague, though quite friendly, and resulted 
in no precise agreements. 

Bismarck sought a treaty of alliance with Italy for the Treaty 
coming encounter. Italy coveted Venetia, and in April 
1866, after much diplomatic manoeuvering, arising from the 
fact that neither power had confidence in the honesty of 
the other, a treaty was made and signed on April 8, 1866. 
It was to the effect that if Prussia should within three 
months go to war with Austria for the sake of reforms 
in the German Confederation, Italy should also declare 
war against Austria; that neither would make a separate 
peace; that if the allies were successful, Italy should receive 
Venetia from Austria and Prussia an equivalent amount of 
Austrian territory. 

From the moment this treaty was signed Bismarck de- 
voted all his efforts to bringing about the war with Austria 
within the three months. It was not difficult to find pre- 
texts. The Treaty of Gastein proved a most convenient 
aid. Prussia protested vigorously against Austria's method 
of administering Holstein. Austria resented the criticism 
as an impertinent interference in her own affairs. Rela- 
tions between the two powers thus became strained to the 
breaking point, and both began to arm. Still some weeks 
went by before hostilities commenced, 

Bismarck's ultimate purpose in all his actions was the Bismarck 

acquisition of the leadership in Germany for Prussia awav P'^^P^^^^ 
. . . ^_ ^ . ^'' . „ , -' for a war 

from Austria. He was preparmg a German civil war for -^^xh 

that end; but he wished to give it a broader basis than a Austria. 



262 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Bismarck 
proposes a 
reform of 
the Con- 
federation. 



mere sordid quarrel about the northern duchies, in which 
no idea was apparent save self-aggrandizement. He now 
sought to give a new turn and a more important character 
to this rivalry of Austria and Prussia. He preferred to 
appear to be fighting for the reform of the German Con- 
federation rather than for the duchies. On April 9th, the 
very day after the signature of the treaty with Italy, and 
in consonance with one of its provisions, that very one, 
indeed, on which the whole treaty rested, he caused the 
Prussian plan for the reform of the Confederation to be in- 
troduced into the Diet at Frankfort. The plan was entirely 
unexpected. It was vague in all that concerned the rela- 
tions of the princes to each other, but definite in that it 
proposed that in addition to the Diet there should be chosen 
by universal suffrage a popular chamber to share in the 
management of common affairs. The amazement of Ger- 
man Liberals was unbounded. Here was the man who had 
spent his life deriding and defying parliaments and ridiculing 
democracy now adopting its extreme demand — universal suf- 
frage. The Liberals thought it a mere trick and did not take 
the proposal seriously. This was a turning point in Bis- 
marck's career. He was now presenting a scheme for the re- 
organization of Germany, and he saw that if Prussia was 
to gain the leadership she must make some sacrifices to 
the feelings of the other states. They would not willingly ac- 
cept the leadership of an autocratic, parliament-defying 
Prussia. By conceding universal suffrage, liberal opinion, 
hitherto hostile to Prussia, might be won. The full effect of 
this proposal was not seen until later. Prussia's power was 
not immediately increased, owing to the distrust which Bis- 
marck's career inspired in the minds of Liberals. It seems 
likely that Bismarck did not now fear universal suffrage, as 
he had seen how favorably it had worked in France for a 
despotic Emperor. 

Even after this there was delay. Bismarck was still 
waiting for the provocation to come from Austria. He 



THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR 263 

wished to throw upon her the odium of beginning the civil 

war which he was doing everything in his power to render 

inevitable. At last the moment came. On June 1, 1866, 

Austria brought the Schleswig-Holstein question before the 

Diet. At once Bismarck declared that this was a breach 

of the Treaty of Gastein. That agreement was, therefore, 

void and Prussian troops were sent into Holstein, Austria's 

jurisdiction. Austria on June 11th moved in the Diet 

that the Federal forces be sent against Prussia. Prussia Prussia 

announced to the other states that every vote in favor of withdraws 

this motion would be regarded as a declaration of war. „ ^ ^ 

" _ Confedera- 

On June 14th the vote was taken and the motion carried, tion. 

Pronouncing this levying of war by the Confederation 

against one of its members illegal, Prussia declared the 

Confederation dissolved, again brought forward her reform 

plans, and prepared for immediate action. 

Thus the German civil war began. Bismarck had brought The 

about his dream of a conflict between peoples of the same ■*-^^*^°" 

. . /. 1 Prussian 

race to determme the question of control. It proved to ^j^j. 

be one of the shortest wars in history, one of the most de- 
cisive, and one whose consequences were most momentous. 
It is called the Seven Weeks' War. It began June 16, 
1866, was virtually decided on July 3d, was brought to 
a close before the end of that month by the preliminary 
Peace of Nikolsburg, July 26th, which was followed a 
month later by the definitive Peace of Prague, August 23. 
Prussia had no German allies of any importance. Several 
of the North German states sided with her, but these were 
small and their armies were unimportant. On the other 
hand, Austria was supported by the four kingdoms, Ba- 
varia, Wiirtemberg, Saxony, and Hanover; also by Hesse- 
Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and Baden. But Prussia 
had one important ally, Italy, without whose aid she might 
not have won the victory. The Prussian army, however, 
was better prepared. For years the rulers of Prussia had 
been preparing for war, perfecting the army down to the 



264 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Hellmuth 
von Moltke, 
1800-1891. 



Prussia 
conquers 
North 
Germany. 



minutest detail, and with scientific thoroughness, and when 
the war began it was absolutely ready. Moreover, it was 
directed by the greatest military genius Europe has seen 
since Napoleon, General von Moltke. Moltke had studied 
profoundly Napoleon's methods. A thorough master of the 
principles of war, he was particularly remarkable as an 
organizer. He had carefully worked out the relation to 
war of the modern means of rapid communication, the rail- 
way and the telegraph. Devoting endless time and thought 
to elaborate, minute preparation, so that it happened that 
no army ever in history has been able to get under way 
with the quickness of the one he commanded, he also dis- 
played audacity in action. He had, moreover, under him 
men similarly trained in theory, in the actual handling 
of troops, and with similar qualities of intelligence, judg- 
ment, and daring. 

On the other hand, the Austrian army had as commander 
Benedek, who said of himself that he could command a 
division, but felt unable to command an army, forced, how- 
ever, by loyalty to the Emperor to accept a command which 
he had at first refused. His army also had no such per- 
fection of organization as had that of Prussia. Moreover, 
Austria had two enemies to fight — one in front, Prussia; 
one in the rear, Italy, a condition always full of 
danger. 

Prussia had many enemies. Being absolutely prepared, 
which her enemies were not, she could assume the offensive, 
and this was the cause of her first victories. War began 
June 16th. Within three days Prussian troops had occupied 
Hanover, Dresden, and Cassel, the capitals of her three 
North German enemies. The Hanoverian army defeated 
the Prussian at Langensalza June 27 th, but was compelled 
to capitulate two days later, the Prussians having received 
large reinforcements. The King of Hanover and the Elector 
of Hesse were taken prisoners of war. All North Ger- 
many was now controlled by Prussia, and within two weeks 



THE BATTLE OF KONIGGRATZ 265 

of the opening of the war she was ready to attempt the 
great plan of Moltke, an invasion of Bohemia. The rapid- 
ity of the campaign struck Europe with amazement. Moltke 
sent three armies by different routes into Bohemia, and The 
on July 3, 1866, one of the great battles of history, that ^^^iggratz 
of Koniggratz, or Sadowa, was fought. Each army num- or Sadowa. 
bered over 200,000, the Prussians outnumbering the Aus- 
trians, though not at the beginning. Since the battle of 
Leipsic in 1813, so many troops had not been engaged 
in a single conflict. King William, Bismarck, Roon, and 
Moltke took up their position on a hill, whence they could 
view the scene. The battle was long and doubtful. Be- 
ginning early in the morning, it continued for hours, fought 
with terrific fury, the Prussians making no advance against 
the Austrian artillery. Up to two o'clock it seemed an 
Austrian victory, but with the arrival of the Prussian Crown 
Prince with his army the issue was turned, and at half-past 
three the Austrians were beaten and their retreat began. 
They had lost over forty thousand men, while the Prussian 
loss was about ten thousand. The Prussian army during the 
next three weeks advanced to within sight of the spires of 
Vienna. 

On June 24th the Austrians had been victorious over 
the Italians at Custozza. Yet the Italians had helped 
Prussia in detaining 80,000 Austrian troops, which, had they 
been at Koniggratz, would probably have turned the day. 
The Italian fleet was also defeated by the Austrian at Lissa, 
July 20th. 

Prussia still had enemies, the Confederate armies, and 
the troops of the South German states, notably Bavaria. 
But she made equally short work of these obstacles. The 
Bavarian army was defeated at Kissingen July 10th. Finally 
Frankfort, hitherto the seat of the German Confederation, 
was entered July 16th. The southern states sued for 
peace. 

The causes of the overthrow of Austria were numerous. 



266 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Causes of 

Austria's 

defeat. 



Results of 
the Austro- 
Prussian 
war. 



Some have already been indicated. The armies which Moltke 
commanded were probably the best that had ever appeared 
upon the field of battle, and they were directed by a single 
master-mind which gave coherence and harmony to their 
movements. The Austrian army, on the other hand, was, 
in point of military instruction, inferior. Moreover, it 
was not pervaded by the same single, national enthusiasm. 
Austria was not a single people, but a collection of peoples, 
who were separated by jealousies and animosities, and the 
army exemplified these divisions. The Hungarians gave no 
enthusiastic support, for, since 1849, they had been alienated 
from the Empire which had taken away their Constitution. 
The Slavs were lukewarm, hating the Government of Vienna, 
which was largely German. The allies of Austria in Ger- 
many were poorly equipped, poorly commanded, and unable 
to co-operate heartily. Again, while the Austrian artillery 
and cavalry were superior to the Prussian, the infantry 
was equipped with a weapon far inferior. The " needle gun 
is king," said the London Times after the news of Konig- 
gratz. This gun was superior to the Austrian in that, being 
more easily loaded, it could be discharged four or five times 
a minute, while the Austrian gun could be discharged only 
once. In almost all the encounters of the war the losses were 
proportionate to the rapidity of fire. Again, the tactics of 
the Austrians increased their losses immensely. They fought 
in serried ranks, while the Prussians, having learned that the 
progress in firearms rendered such methods very costly, 
fought in loose order, taking advantage of the inequalities 
of surface, and of the protection aiforded by trees and 
thickets. 

The results of the Seven Weeks' War were momentous. 
Fearing the intervention of Europe, and particularly that 
of France, which was threatened, and which might rob the 
victory of its fruits, Bismarck wished to make peace at once, 
and consequently offered very lenient terms to Austria. His 
moderation was bitterly opposed by the military leaders of 



^ 






I '■'*"* \ •^ r-5 Art/era ^^ ^^ 




/VBornholni 




The Growtli of 

PKITSSIA 

SINCE 1815 . 

Prussia. /8f.5 

1815.Ni'wlvtirfjidreclJkirU4)Ty 

I I Arquisifwns imtil h%l 
■ Uiwiisiti/msnfWiKnm I-ISffl-im 
' AnpusUimis of William K 
Tt'rntf)r>('slmtfi//dnfl!nyniiwd 
Aujnbersoiypt)i(')wrofmy/iim/im; 
inl)rafk£ts year of loss. 
B. -frmii Bdmnii 
1). -from firand Dudn ollicxse 
K r from Skctor ate of Hesse. 



PRUSSIAN ANNEXATIONS 267 

Prussia,* but finally won the day, and the Preliminaries of 
Nikolsburg were agreed to, July 26th. Austria was to cede 
Venetia to Italy, but was to lose no other territory. She was 
to pay no war indemnity. She was to withdraw permanently 
from the German Confederation, which, indeed, was to cease 
to exist. She was to allow Prussia to organize and lead a 
new confederation, composed of those states which were north 
of the river Main. The South German states were left free 
to act as they chose. Thus Germany, north of the Main, 
was to be united. 

Having accomplished this, Prussia proceeded to make Annexations 
important annexations to her own territory. The King- 
dom of Hanover, the Duchies of Nassau and Hesse-Cassel, 
and the free city of Frankfort, as well as the Duchies of 
Schleswig and Holstein, were incorporated in the Prussian 
kingdom. Her population was thereby increased by over 
four and a half million new subjects, and thus was about 
twenty-four million. Her territory was increased by thir- 
teen hundred square miles, almost a fourth of her former 
area. Her western and eastern provinces were thus finally 
united by the absorption of those states that lay between, 
and she now gained a cohesion she had always lacked. She 
henceforth controlled the northern coast of Germany, with 
brief gaps, from Russia to Holland. There was no thought 
of having the people of these states vote on the question 
of annexation, as had been done in Italy, and in Savoy and 
Nice. They were annexed forthwith by right of military 
conquest. Reigning houses ceased to rule on order from 
Berlin. With singular fatuity European nations allowed 
the swift consummation of these changes, which altered the 
balance of power and the map of Europe — a mistake that 
France in particular was to repent most bitterly. " I do 

^ This is explicitly asserted by Bismarck in one of the most dramatic 
sections of his Reflections and Reminiscences (II, 47-54). On the 
other hand the correctness of his assertion has been subjected to 
very damaging criticism by Professor Max Lenz. See Lenz, Zur Kritik 
der Gedanken und Erinnerungen des FUrsten Bismarck, 58-132. 



268 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



The 
North 
German 
Confedera- 
tion, 
1867-1871. 



not like this dethronement of dynasties," said the Tsar, but 
he failed to express his dislike in action.^ 

Bismarck, now wishing for the support of the Liberals in 
his future work, came before the Chamber of Deputies and 
asked and received an indemnity for having governed with- 
out a budget. Thus he recognized the rights of the Cham- 
ber under the Constitution. But this action was more formal 
than real. The Crown had won these amazing successes 
in the face of the bitter opposition of the Chamber, opposi- 
tion to the reorganization of the army, to the war with 
Denmark, and to the war with Austria. The Crown had 
defeated Parliament morally, as well as practically. The 
confidence of the German people in parliamentary govern- 
ment was seriously undermined. 

The German Confederation, established in 1815, dis- 
appeared forever in the cataclysm of 1866. The Diet of 
Frankfort was no more. Austria was excluded from Ger- 
many by the Treaty of Prague. There was now formed 
a new confederation, more limited geographically, but of 
far greater power than the old — a real federal state. This 
North German Confederation included all Germany north 
of the river Main, twenty-two states in all: i.e., two king- 
doms, Prussia and Saxony; ten duchies, seven principalities, 
and the free cities of Hamburg, Liibeck, and Bremen. Not 
included were Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, Baden, and that part 
of Hesse-Darmstadt south of the boundary river. 

The Constitution of this new state merits examination, 
as, with certain slight and formal changes, it subsists to-day 
as the Constitution of Germany. Bismarck was its author. 
After some amendments were made in it with Prussia's con- 
sent, it was accepted by the Governments of the several 

*The Russian Government, declaring that, as the German Confedera- 
tion had been founded in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna, to which 
all the powers were parties, it could not be abolished by Prussia alone, 
proposed a new international congress to settle the terms of peace. 
Against this proposal Bismarck assumed an attitude so highly belliger- 
ent, threatening war d outrance, that it was dropped. 



THE NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION 269 

states, and was then submitted in 1867 to a National As- 
sembly chosen by manhood suffrage for the purpose. Passed 
by this body with some slight alterations, it was finally rati- 
fied without further amendment by the legislatures of the 
several states. 

The new federal organization was to consist of a Presi- The 
dent, the King of Prussia, of a Federal Council (Bundes- ^" ^^" 
rath), and a Parliament (Reichstag). The Federal Coun- 
cil was really the old Diet of Frankfort, preserved in the 
new scheme. It was to be composed of delegates sent by the 
sovereigns of the different states, to be recalled at their 
pleasure, bound by instructions given them by their princes. 
The voting power of the different states was fixed arbitrarily 
and not according to population, differing from the Senate 
of the United States in that the number of votes allotted the 
different states greatly varied. There were to be 43 votes 
in all. Of these Prussia was to have 17, Saxony 4, Mecklen- 
burg-Schwerin and Brunswick 2, each of the others 1. In 
order to have a majority, Prussia would have to gain the 
support of five little principalities, which she could easily do. 
In regard to military organization, no change might be 
made in the laws without the consent of Prussia. 

Associated with this Bundesrath, or Council of Princes, The 
as it really was, was the Reichstag, or Parliament, com- 
posed of 297 members, elected by direct manhood suffrage 
and by secret ballot, for three years. Of the two bodies 
the Reichstag was much the less important, therein differing 
from the popularly elected chamber in other countries. The 
emphasis in this new organization of Germany was put upon 
the princes, the sovereigns, not upon the people. The people 
were given a place In the system, but a subordinate one. 
Bismarck always considered the Bundesrath the key to 
the Constitution. Large powers of legislation were given 
to the new government. All laws and all taxes must pass 
both chambers. 

The new Constitution went into force July 1, 1867. " Let 



270 



BISMARCK AND GERMAN UNITY 



Alliance 
with South 
German 
states. 



Consoli- 
dating 
new 
system. 



the 



us work quickly," Bismarck said while the Constitution was 
under dissension, " let us put Germany in the saddle ; she 
will soon learn to ride," another Bismarckian prophecy 
destined to come true. Germany now entered upon a period 
of remarkable progress, which has continued to this day. 
Legislative activity supplemented and clinched the triumphs 
of diplomacy and war. The old Confederation had failed 
in two particulars, said Bismarck in the Parliament of 1867 : 
it had failed to insure the national safety, and it had failed 
to develop adequately the prosperity of the nation. These 
were not to be the failures of the new. Its military strength 
was amply assured. The armies of the different states were 
now all organized on the Prussian model, with the President 
of the Confederation as chief. He now commanded an army 
of 800,000 men. Moreover, Bismarck was able, by playing 
upon their fear of France, to induce the South German states 
to enter into a military alliance, offensive and defensive, with 
the North German Confederation. This increased the army 
to over a million. In a military sense Germany was unified. 
Laws were rapidly passed aiming to increase the material 
well-being, to enlist firmly on the side of the new experiment 
the capitalist, industrial classes. The growth of the modem 
industrial system had been, as we have seen, one of the 
forces making for unity. It had greatly helped to create 
the situation in which Bismarck had been able to work so 
effectively. The business world now demanded that the 
state reward it by the removal of many restrictions which 
had survived the Zollverein and which hampered economic 
activity. Certain laws which restricted the free movement 
of the people were repealed, passports being suppressed, 
the absolute, unqualified right of every citizen to reside any- 
where in the Confederation guaranteed. This aided indus- 
tries by providing them a free and mobile labor market. 
In place of the medley of weights and measures of the 
different states, which were a hindrance to commerce, a 
uniform plan was adopted, based upon the metric and 



PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION 271 

decimal systems. A single monetary system was also de- 
creed in place of the great variety of currencies in vogue. 
The formation of business corporations was encouraged. 
Laws limiting the rate of interest were abolished. The postal 
system was reorganized. Commercial treaties were made 
with other nations. Workingmen were given the right to 
form unions. The results of all this activity were notable. 
The pecuniary advantage of large and influential classes lay 
in the success of the Confederation. Economic life bound 
the different states every year more tightly together. 

Meanwhile Germans were biding the time when by the 
addition of the South German states the political unity 
would be complete. This was to be the result of the Franco- 
German war of 1870. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SECOND 
EMPIRE 

We have traced the rise of Italy, the rise of Prussia. We 
have now to trace the decline and fall of the French Empire. 
The history of that Empire from its foundation in 1852 to 
1860 has been described. It was a period of despotic 
government, and of great and uninterrupted success. The 
period from 1860 to 1870 witnesses the gradual transforma- 
tion of the Empire from autocracy to liberalism, the rise 
of a vigorous party of opposition, a disastrous foreign 
policy, a growing demoralization within the state, and a 
final, tragic collapse. 
Disastrous The turning point in the history of the Empire was the 

,^ ,. Italian war. However beneficial to Italy, that war raised 

Italian war _ . 

upon Napo- up for Napoleon a host of enemies in France. One of 
leon III. its features had been the attack upon the temporal power 
of the Papacy. That power was not overthrown in fact, 
but it was in principle. The Pope had lost most of his 
states, the rest were in danger. Catholics were bitter in 
their denunciation of Napoleon. This was most damaging 
for him, as his strongest supporters had hitherto been the 
clergy, the clerical press, and the faithful. But other 
groups also were offended: monarchists, because of the 
overthrow of the kingdom of Naples and the duchies ; patriots 
of various affiliations and members of the liberal constitu- 
tional party in Parliament, because they believed the erec- 
tion of a strong state to the southeast of France prejudicial 
to her best interests, it being better to have several weak 
states as neighbors than a single strong one. 

27S 



EFFECT OF THE ITALIAN WAR OF 1859 273 

Only the democratic party in France seemed pleased with ^^^ '^^^ 
this venture, and for reasons that might well give the Em- . , 

peror pause. This was the smallest of all the parties. It democratic 
was by its fundamental principles opposed to the very party, 
existence of the Empire. " To find partisans of an Italian 
war, one must seek them in those circles which are plotting 
the overthrow of the Empire," an official had reported to 
the Emperor before ever the war had begun. These demo- 
crats approved a war against Austria, the traditional op- 
ponent of liberalism. They favored a war that might dam- 
age another enemy of theirs, the Roman Catholic Church. 
They applauded it warmly because its tendency seemed to be 
inevitably democratic and anti-clerical. They were pleased 
to have the Emperor enter upon a doubtful adventure, be- 
lieving that one adventure might lead to others, that he would 
alienate former supporters, and would therefore be forced to 
seek new ones, and that thus a situation favorable to them- 
selves might be created. But even they were disappointed 
at the outcome of the war and were therefore critical. The 
Austrians were still in Venetia ; the Pope was still in Rome. 

The Emperor's reputation as a ruler, of intelligent views Napoleon's 
and of decision of character, was damaged both at home and 
abroad. As the war progressed it revealed the lack in 
its author of any definite purpose to be vigorously adhered 
to, Napoleon III at first agreeing to drive the Austrians 
out of the peninsula and to free Italy from the Alps to the 
Adriatic, then stopping midway in the process and dictating 
the Preliminaries of Villafranca and the Peace of Zurich, only 
to permit them both to become immediately dead letters, and 
watching the revolution, unchained by his act, progress until 
the most sweeping change in Italian history had been effected 
and unification had been practically achieved. By a policy, 
alternately so reckless and so pusillanimous, he lessened his 
prestige, for he showed that though he could inaugurate 
momentous movements, he had not the power or sagacity 
or courage to control them. By participating in the over- 



274 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 



England 
offended. 



Treaty of 
commerce 
offends 
Protec- 
tionists. 



throw of long-established, legitimate governments, he made 
legitimate governments everywhere suspicious and even hos- 
tile; by declaring that he was seeking only justice and 
not aggrandizement and then adding Savoy and Nice to 
France as payment for his services, he alienated England, 
as well as other states, which saw only hypocrisy in his 
acts and which feared that he was desirous of repeating the 
policy of conquest of his illustrious uncle. Such was the 
outcome of a policy, fortunate for the Italians, unfortunate 
for the Emperor. The next decade is a long commentary 
upon Napoleon's initial error. For ten years he was to 
experience to the full the embarrassments created by his 
ill-advised Italian policy. 

It was at this time that in a different sphere he offended 
another powerful interest at home. He made in 1860, 
with unusual secrecy, a treaty of commerce with England. 
This treaty involved a great reduction of duties on many 
articles, and was a step in the direction of free trade. While 
popular with political economists, and while probably ad- 
vantageous to France as a whole, it was bitterly resented 
by the great manufacturers, who, given no warning and 
therefore no time to adapt themselves to changed conditions, 
believed that they would be utterly ruined. Four hundred 
of them came to Paris to seek an audience with the Em- 
peror in order to present their cause. They were un- 
successful. The audience was not granted, but they pub- 
lished a vehement protest against the new policy. " We are 
about to be condemned without having been heard." But 
while the manufacturers were indignant, many in France 
were grateful, notably the wine producers, who, according 
to the new treaty, would have a larger market in England 
than ever. But the Emperor had thus by 1860 offended 
large and influential classes : Catholics in their beliefs by 
his Italian policy ; manufacturers, protectionists, in their 
interests by his treaty of commerce, a treaty which, it was 
declared, sacrificed French interests to English, as the war, 



BEGINNING OF THE LIBERAL EMPIRE 275 

it was likewise declared, had subordinated the welfare of 
France to that of Italy. 

Feeling that he was losing strength with the Conservatives, Napoleon 
Napoleon now began to seek the support of the Liberals, ^^^ i,iberals. 
hitherto his bitter opponents. This was the beginning of 
the so-called Liberal Empire, marked, as the years went, by 
ever greater concessions, until at the end the character of 
the government was completely transformed. Thus in 1859 
Napoleon issued an amnesty which permitted the Repub- 
licans who had been driven from France by the coup d'etat 
of 1851 to return. Many were prisoners in Algeria, in 
Guiana. Many were exiles in Belgium, Switzerland, Eng- 
land. From these countries the exiles now came back, 
but not all of them. " I shall return," said Victor Hugo, 
" when Liberty returns." 

Napoleon next took a step which seemed to indicate that 

he was finally to enter upon the work of crowning Ms 

regime with liberty, which he had declared to be the ideal 

of the Napoleonic system. In November 1860 he slightly 

enlarged the power of the legislature. By the decree of Powers of 

PfirlifiitiGiit 
November 24th he gave the Senate and Legislative Body . , 

the right at the opening of each session to frame an address 

to the monarch in reply to his address from the throne. 

Such was the custom in England, and such had been the 

custom in France under the parliamentary monarchy from 

1815 to 1848. This gave the legislature the chance once 

a year to discuss the whole policy of the Government, as 

each phrase of the address was being composed and debated. 

Everything could be passed in review at that time. Another 

innovation, hardly less noteworthy, was made at the same 

time. A full stenographic report of the sessions of the 

Legislative Body was henceforth to be published. The people 

were no longer to be required to content themselves with a 

concise, dry, analytical report of these sessions, relegated 

to the most obscure part of the paper, but now the eloquence 

of the Chamber might be known to all the country, im- 



276 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 

passioned, incisive, instructive. Another article provided 
that henceforth ministers, representing the Government, 
should appear before the Chambers authorized to explain 
and defend its policy. 

Though by this famous decree Napoleon III divested him- 
self of none of his prerogatives, nevertheless the importance 
of Parliament was henceforth increased. This was the first 
and most important of the successive steps In the evolution 
of the autocratic Into the liberal Empire. But the Emperor 
was mistaken in supposing that he could win the Liberals 
to his side. He was simply giving them greater oppor- 
tunities for opposition. Under the operation of this decree 
Revival of parliamentary life awoke again in France. Communication 
interest in between the Legislative Body and the country, broken since 
1852, was re-established. Extraordinary interest was shown 
by the people In the next session of that Chamber, which 
was characterized by much brilliant oratory and keen criti- 
cism. It was noted with surprise that many of the most 
effective speeches were directed against this or that phase 
of the Imperial government. The Emperor had evoked a 
spirit which it would be difficult to suppress. The Opposition 
In the Chamber was small numerically, but was aggressive. 
That It produced some effect was shown by the next elec- 
Eise of a tions, those of 1863, when its number increased from five 
Party ^° thirty-five, of whom seventeen were out-and-out Repub- 

licans. This was, of course, a powerless minority in 
a chamber of nearly 260 members. But the popular 
vote was significant. The opponents of the Empire, 
Catholics, Protectionists, Monarchists, Republicans, had 
obtained about two million votes — almost a third of those 
cast. 

It was just this time, when various difficulties were arising 
about him more troublesome than any which he had previously 
encountered, that Napoleon chose for another enterprise 
most unnecessary, most reckless, and In the end most dis- 
astrous. He undertook to erect an empire five thousand 



THE MEXICAN EXPEDITION 277 

miles away, in a country of which he knew but Httle, and 

in which poKtical institutions had for half a century rested 

on a very shifting basis — Mexico. 

England, Spain, and France had certain grievances against The 

Mexico for her unjust treatment of their citizens resident ^^"^^^^^ 

expedition, 
there, and when the Mexican Government suspended by 

arbitrary decree the payment of interest on bonds held 
abroad, they proceeded to organize an intervention. They 
were the more able to do this than in ordinary times, owing 
to the fact that the United States, the natural opponent 
of any such intervention, was then involved in a civil war 
that forbade her attempting to prevent it. Consequently, 
in October 1861 these three powers signed the Treaty of 
London agreeing upon joint intervention for the sole pur- 
pose of securing adequate protection for Europeans resident 
in Mexico, and the proper discharge of financial obligations 
incurred by that country by previous treaties. The Allies 
expressly stated that they had no intention of making terri- 
torial conquests or of overthrowing the existing Mexican gov- 
ernment, which was a republic under Juarez as president. 
The expedition was sent out, arriving in December 1861 
and January 1862. But by April it became clear to Spain 
and England that France had distinctly other purposes in 
this affair than those stated in the treaty of alliance. Na- 
poleon's real intentions, shortly apparent, were the over- 
throw of the republic and the establishment of a monarchy 
in Mexico under a European prince. The English and 
Spaniards would give no sanction to such a scheme, and 
consequently enjtirely withdrew in April 1862. The ex- 
pedition now became one purely French. The question 
of financial honesty on the part of Mexico was lost sight 
of, and a war began, a war of aggression, entirely uncalled 
for, but a war which in the end punished its author more 
than it did the Mexicans, one of the most dishonorable, as 
it was one of the most costly and disastrous, for the Second 
Empire. 



278 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 

Napoleon's Napoleon III was a man of ideas, a man of imagination, 
purposes. -with a mind ranging boldly and far at times. His ideas 
were frequently grandiose, yet vague and dim, his imagina- 
tion lively, yet frequently unsound, superficial, deceptive. 
While a prisoner in the fortress of Ham he had written 
and published a pamphlet concerning America. In this 
he proclaimed the necessity of digging a great canal to 
connect the Atlantic and Pacific. On it a " new Constanti- 
nople " might arise, near the borders of North America and 
South America, as ancient Byzantium had arisen at the 
point where Europe and Asia meet. The founder of such 
a place might work out for the new world what had been 
worked out in Europe — an equilibrium of the different forces 
— by strengthening the enfeebled Latin element and hemming 
in the overflowing Anglo-Saxon element. 

The theory of nationalities would thus win another vic- 
tory. Latins would hold in check the aggressive Anglo- 
Saxons. The colonies of Spain and France would be more 
secure, French commerce would find new outlets, the ma- 
terials for French industries would be more easily procured. 
And, said Napoleon, " We shall have established our benefi- 
cent influence in the center of America." Another reason 
may have influenced the Emperor. The Republic of Mexico 
had in some of its legislation deeply offended the Roman 
Catholic Church. Might he not win back the favor of 
Catholics forfeited by his Italian expedition by undertaking 
this one? 
Napoleon This expedition for the overthrow of the Mexican Republic, 

overthrows pj-gnounced by courtiers " the grandest thought of the 
Republic. reign," was a long drawn out folly. The French troops 
were checked at Puebla on May 5, 1862 — the first military 
defeat of the Empire. But, reinforced, they were victorious, 
and General Forey, the French commander, called together 
an assembly of Mexican notables of the opposition party, 
which decreed that Mexico should henceforth be an Empire, 
and which offered the imperial crown to Archduke Maximilian 



THE EMPIRE OF MEXICO S79 

of Austria, brother of Francis Joseph, since 1848 Emperor 
of Austria. This assembly represented, perhaps, 350,000 
people out of about 7,000,000. It offered a fatal gift. 
This young prince of thirty-one was of attractive and popu- 
lar manners, and of liberal ideas. Young, handsome, ver- 
satile, half poet, half scientist, he was living in a superb 
palace, Miramar, overlooking the Mediterranean, amid his 
collections, his objects of art, and with the sea which was 
his passion always before him. From out of this enchanting 
retreat he now emerged to become the central figure of 
a short and frightful tragedy. Mexico lured him to his 
doom. Influenced by his own ambition and that of his 
spirited wife, Carlotta, daughter of Leopold I, King of 
Belgium, and receiving definite promises of French military 
support until 1867, he accepted the imperial crown and 
arrived in Mexico in May 1864. 

This entire project, born in the brain of Napoleon III, Disastrous 
was to prove hopeless from the start, disastrous to all who outcome of 
participated in it, to the new Emperor and Empress, and to ^g^^^j-g 
Napoleon. The difiiculties confronting the new monarch 
were insuperable. A guerilla warfare was carried on suc- 
cessfully by Juarez, using up the French soldiers and put- 
ting them on the defensive. Even the communications of 
the French army with the sea were seriously threatened. 
Maximilian at last issued a decree that any enemies taken 
with arms would be summarily shot — a decree that made 
him hated by all Mexicans, and that gave to the war a 
character of extreme atrocity. A greater danger threatened 
the new empire when General Lee surrendered at Appomat- 
tox. The United States had looked from the first with 
disapprobation upon Napoleon's project. Now that the Interven- 
Civil War was over, she threatened intervention. Napoleon *^°" ^^ ^^^ 
was unwilling to risk a conflict with this country, and con- states, 
sequently promised to withdraw his troops speedily from 
Mexico. Maximilian could not remain long an Emperor 
without Napoleon's support. His wife, Carlotta, return- 



280 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 



Discom- 
fiture of "Sa- 
poleon III. 



Additional 
concessions 
to liber- 
alism. 



ing to Europe to persuade Napoleon in frantic personal 
interviews not to desert them, received no promise of support 
from the man who had planned the whole adventure, and 
in the fearful agony of her contemplation of the impending 
doom of her husband became insane. Maximilian was taken 
by the Mexicans and shot June 19, 1867. The phantom 
empire vanished. 

A most expensive enterprise for the French Emperor. 
It had eaten into the financial resources of France, already 
badly disorganized. It had prevented his playing a part 
in decisive events occurring in central Europe in 1864-66, 
in the Danish war, and the Austro-Prussian war, the out- 
come of which was to alter so seriously the importance of 
France in Europe by the exaltation of an ambitious, aggres- 
sive, and powerful military state, Prussia. It had damaged 
Hm morally before Europe by the desertion of his proteges 
to an appalling fate before the threats of the United 
States. His army had once been repelled, before Puebla 
in 1862, the first military defeat in his reign. He had 
squandered uselessly his military resources and had increased 
the national debt. It has been asserted that the Mexican 
war was as disastrous for Napoleon III as the Spanish war 
had been for Napoleon I. 

In 1868, after the great humiliation resulting from the 
Mexican war and from the futile attempts to play an 
effective part in European diplomacy in the crowded years 
of 1864-68, which will be described later. Napoleon III, 
feeling greatly the need of new sources of strength, could 
only turn to the Liberals with still larger concessions. Other 
motives influenced him to go further in this direction than 
he had previously gone. He had declared at the begin- 
ning of his reign that autocratic power was to be merely 
provisional, that liberty should crown the edifice. Liberal- 
minded by nature, he saw that he could not safely postpone 
the day. Time was passing. Sixteen years had gone by 
and the system of 1852 was still almost entirely intact. 



GAMBETTA ATTACKS THE EMPIRE 281 

Moreover, he was now becoming prematurely old, and was 
suffering acutely from disease, a fact that must be borne 
in mind henceforth as helping to explain the vacillation 
and languor at critical times of this man, who had pre- 
viously acted with decision and promptness. Self-interest 
also would be served in another way. As his policy was 
now sadly compromised in every way, there would be evident 
advantage in making the assembly, the people, share the 
responsibihty with himself. In 1867 the right of interpella- The right 
tion was granted the Chamber, which gave its members the o^ mter- 
power to question the ministers concerning their acts and ^^nted 
policies at any moment. In 1868, upon the Emperor's 
recommendation, a law was passed freeing the press from 
a considerable number of restrictions that had previously 
weighted it ; also a law permitting, under certain elaborate 
conditions, the right of holding public meetings. 

The Empire had thus entered upon a frankly liberal 
path. The result was not to strengthen, but greatly to 
weaken it. Many new journals were founded, in which 
it was assailed with amazing bitterness. A remarkable free- 
dom of speech characterizes the last two years of Napo- 
leon's reign. A movement to erect a monument to a 
republican deputy, Baudin, who had been shot on the 
barricades in 1851 at the time of the coup d'etat, seemed to 
the Government to be too insulting. It prosecuted the 
men who were conducting the subscription. One of these 
was defended by a brilliant, impassioned young lawyer and 
orator from the south of France, thirty years of age, who 
was shortly to be a great figure in politics, a founder of 
the Third Republic. Gambetta conducted himself not as a Dramatic 
lawyer defending his client, but as an avenger of the wrongs ^™^igence 
of France for the past seventeen years, impeaching bitterly Gambetta. 
the entire reign of Napoleon III. Particularly did he 
dwell upon the date of December 2d. The coup d'etat, 
he said, was carried through by a crowd of unknown men 
" without talent, without honor, and hopelessly involved in 



282 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 

debts and crimes." " These men pretend to have saved so- 
ciety. Do you save a country when you lay parricidal 
hands upon it.? " The end of this remarkable discourse 
remains famous : " Listen, you who for seventeen years have 
been absolute master of France. The thing that character- 
izes you best, because it is evidence of your own remorse, 
is the fact that you have never dared to say: We will place 
among the solemn festivals of France, we will celebrate as a 
national anniversary, the Second of December. . . . Well! 
this aniversary we will take for ourselves ; we will observe 
it always, always without fail; every year it shall be the 
anniversary of our dead, until the day when the country, 
having become master itself once more, shall impose upon 
you the great national expiation in the name of liberty, 
equality, and fraternity." 
Bitter at- This address had a prodigious effect. Nothing so defiant, 

tacks upon gQ contemptuous of the Government, had been heard in 
jjj France since 1851. Though Gambetta's client lost his case, 

it was generally felt that the Empire emerged from that 
court-room soundly beaten. It was clear that there was 
a party in existence bent upon revenge, and willing to use 
all the privileges a now liberal Emperor might grant, not 
gratefully, but as a means of completely annihilating the 
very Empire, a Republican party, aggressive, and growing, 
already master of Paris, and organizing in the depart- 
ments. 
The Third There was also in existence another party which played 
Party. ^ commanding and decisive part in the closing years of the 

reign, the Third Party, so called from the fact that it 
stood between the thorough-going supporters of the Empire 
and the Republicans, its active enemies. This party was 
willing to support the Empire loyally if Napoleon would 
make it frankly and completely liberal, that is, if he would 
substitute a completely parliamentary system of govern- 
ment for personal rule. This party was led by Ollivier, 
formerly a Republican. 



POPULAR APPROVAL OF THE EMPIRE 283 

Two policies were now urged upon Napoleon, one by 
those of his immediate circle — a return to the strong meas- 
ures of 1852, a renouncement of all compromises with the 
Liberals; the other, the one advocated by the Third Party. 
The elections of 1869 reinforced the latter by showing that, 
though 4,438,000 votes had been cast for the official can- 
didates, 3,355,000 had been cast for those opposed. Na- 
poleon adopted the plan of the Third Party, and by a 
senatus consultum of September 6, 1869, supplemented by 
another of April 20, 1870, the political system of the 
Empire was completely transformed. The Senate was de- ^^^ trans- 
prived of its powers as guardian of the Constitution, and . ., 
became a law-making chamber simply. The Legislative Body Empire 
became complete master of itself, having the right to completed, 
choose its own officers, to make its own rules, to initiate 
legislation, and to demand explanations of the ministers, 
who were declared responsible. Finally, on January 2, 1870, 
Ollivier was himself made head of the ministry, and was 
supported by a majority of the Chamber. Ollivier felt that 
he could assure the Emperor a " happy old age," and his 
son a quiet accession to the throne. 

The approval of the people was now sought for these Popular 
changes. As the Constitution of 1852 had been ratified ^PP'^o^^i- 
by popular vote, ought not the Constitution of 1870, so 
profoundly altered in the course of the last ten years, to 
be likewise approved.'' Believing that a vote of France on 
all these changes would only consolidate them and put be- 
hind the Emperor an immense popular support, thus enabling 
him easily to dominate all the hostile parties which had 
recently become so aggressive and annoying, Napoleon now 
invited the people to vote on this proposition : " The 
French nation approves the liberal reforms made in the 
Constitution since I860, and ratifies the senatus consultum of 
April 20, 1870." Then followed the Constitution in forty- 
five articles, assuring, among other things, the transmission 
of the imperial dignity in the direct line of Napoleon IIL 



284 TRANSFORMATION OF SECOND EMPIRE 



The The plebiscite took place May 8, 1870, and resulted over- 

/m^" ^ whelmingly in favor of the Empire, 7,358,786 voted yes; 

1870. 1,571,939 voted no. Napoleon III could claim that he 

had as many supporters in 1870 as in 1852. The Re- 
publicans, a small minority, opposed this plebiscite, not 
because they did not believe in the right of the people to 
rule, but because they considered it in this case a mere trick 
to gain an apparent absolution for the sins of the Empire. 
Every one must approve the reforms, but would not such 
a vote mean that reform need go no further .f' Now, said 
Gambetta, only one form of government adequately ex- 
presses universal suffrage — the Republic. This party, 
revolutionary in its aims, appeared now to be utterly dis- 
credited by the great success of the Empire in the plebiscite. 
Yet its victory was very near. The Empire seemed solidly 
re-established upon the confidence of the people. In less 
than three months, however, it had declared a war against 
Prussia, in the midst of which it utterly collapsed and was 

Sudden succeeded by the Republic. To understand the reasons for 

CO apse ^j^-^ g^j^j^jj g^j^^j complete downfall, it is necessary to survey 
the Empire, . . . . 

the diplomacy of the period just preceding 1870, and to 

describe the general and immediate causes of that war. 



CHAPTER XIII 
THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

CoNCEENiNG that diplomacy much is known but much re- 
mains obscure. Not until the archives of France and Ger- 
many, the papers of Napoleon III, William I, Bismarck, and 
their ministers and agents are freely given to the world will 
it stand forth fully revealed. Yet fragmentary and un- 
satisfactory as our information is, the broad outlines of the 
story can be drawn with reasonable certitude. 

Up to 1862 Napoleon had been uniformly successful. He 
had defeated Russia and Austria, supposed to be the two 
most redoubtable military powers in Europe, in the Crimean 
and Italian wars. In 1862, however, he entered upon the 
ill-starred Mexican expedition, the " grandest thought of the 
reign," as his courtiers mispronounced it. This weakened 
him in many ways, indicated above, but, particularly did it 
trammel him in his European diplomacy, at the very time 
when events were crowding upon each other thick and fast, 
altering profoundly the face of Europe. Napoleon, dis- 
tracted by a wasting, distant, and inglorious war, was not 
able to act with decision in regard to the remodeling of 
central Europe, the rise of Prussia. Moreover, his intel- 
lectual limitations, his lack of clear thought and persistent 
action, his half-hearted, wavering, shifting nature were now 
brought out in high relief against the hard, practical, clean- 
cut, restrained yet ruthless character of the leader of this Napoleon's 
evolution of Germany, Otto von Bismarck. His doctrine of "iiw^se 
nationalities, on which he so prided himself, was now to turn ^^ j^^^ 
against him to his own undoing. He had acted upon that doctrine of 
doctrine in Italy with the result that an Italian Kingdom nation- 
was in existence. He now, with singular fatuity, helped 

285 



286 THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

forward the development of another state on the frontiers 
of France — Prussia. In the Schleswig-Holstein affair of 
1864 he secretly advised Prussia to take both duchies. " I 
shall always be consistent in my conduct," he had said in 
1863 . "If I have fought for the independence of Italy, 
if I have lifted up my voice for the Polish nationalities, 
I cannot have other sentiments in Germany, nor obey other 
principles." The strengthening of Prussia was a far more 
serious matter for France than the strengthening of Pied- 
mont, as Prussia held the left bank of the Rhine, the Rhine 
provinces, which Frenchmen regarded as rightfully theirs. 
Frenchmen protested against this dangerous policy of en- 
couraging the growth of the ambitious neighbor. 

In 1866 Napoleon had an excellent opportunity to re- 
cover from his initial mistake in Germany. In that year 
Prussia and Austria went to war, nominally over the ques- 
tion of these very duchies, in reality for the leadership of 
central Europe. Bismarck, long planning such a war, had 
The been particularly anxious about the attitude of France, and 

meeting at j^^^ sought to divine the probable conduct of the French 
Biarritz . . . 

Emperor, in the famous interview at Biarritz (1865). We 

have no official details as to the result of that interview, 
but it is clear that Bismarck left it with the conviction that 
Napoleon would be neutral. This would free Prussia from 
any anxiety about her western boundary, and she could 
throw her whole force to the south against Austria and 
her allies. It is evident that Napoleon looked forward to 
such a war between the two German powers with compla- 
cency. He believed there was nothing to fear from Prussia. 
He even urged Italy to conclude the treaty with Prussia, 
apparently thinking that the two combined could hold out 
longer against Austria. Thus, in his opinion, the war 
would be long, exhausting both combatants. At the proper 
time he could intervene, and from the distress of the rivals 
could extract gain for France, possibly the left bank of the 
Rhine, which Prussia might be willing to relinquish in return 



NAPOLEON III IN 1866 287 

for aid. His calculation was based upon his belief in the 

vast military superiority of Austria. The war came, and, 

contrary to expectation, it was short and swift. Prussia 

was victorious, not Austria. The battle of Koniggratz, 

or Sadowa, July 3, 1866, was decisive. Even then it was 

not too late for an intervention. Napoleon could have Napoleon's 

played a commanding part in determining the terms of peace ^^.tlure to 

11S6 Ills 

had he threatened to come to the aid of Austria, as Austria onnortunitv 
desired. His Minister of Foreign Affairs said to him July in 1866. 
5th: "Let the Emperor make a simple military demonstra- 
tion, and he will be astonished at the facility with which he 
will become arbiter and master of the situation without strik- 
ing a blow." King William later said that the war of 1866 
was the ruin of France, " because Napoleon should have 
attacked us in the rear." This was what Bismarck most 
feared. 

But the golden hour slipped by. Napoleon missed one 
of the greatest opportunities of his entire career. Had 
he refused to sanction the annexations of Prussia unless 
compensated, he could have secured important additions to 
France. Pacifically inclined, racked by a disease which re- 
duced his powers of concentration and decision, perhaps 
distrustful of his army, which was depleted by the Mexican 
campaign and which had no eminent commander, his conduct 
was vacillating and weak. Accomplishing nothing for 
France, he yet irritated Prussia by a half measure of in- 
sisting that the new confederation should not extend south 
of the river Main. 

The year 1866 is a turning point in the history of Prussia, The year 
of Austria, of France, of modern Europe. It profoundly 
altered the historic balance of power. By the decisiveness point in 
of the campaign, and by the momentous character of its modern 
consequences, Prussia, hitherto regarded as the least im- ^^^^^'^y* 
portant of the great powers, had astounded Europe by the 
evidence of her strength. She possessed a remarkable army 
and a remarkable statesman. That both were the most 



288 



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 



" Revenge 

for 

Sadowa." 



Failure of 
Napoleon's 
diplomacy. 



powerful in Europe was not entirely proved, but the feeling 
was widespread that such was the case. The center of 
interest in central Europe shifted from Vienna to Berlin. 
The reputation of Napoleon III was seriously compromised. 
The instinct of the French people saw in the battle of 
Koniggratz, or Sadowa, as they called it, a humiliating 
defeat for France, though it was a battle exclusively be- 
tween Prussia and Austria, France being no party to the 
war. The instinct was largely right. At least the Peace 
of Prague involved and indicated the diminution of the 
authority and importance of France. For a reorganiza- 
tion so sweeping in central Europe, as the overthrow of 
Austria, her expulsion from Germany, and the consolidation 
and aggrandizement of Prussia, a powerful military state, 
upset the balance of power. A feeling of alarm spread 
through France. " Revenge for Sadowa," was a cry often 
heard henceforth. Its meaning was that if one state like 
Prussia should be increased in area and power, France 
also, for consenting to it, had a right to a proportionate 
increase, that the reciprocal relations might remain the same. 
The hold of the Emperor upon his own people was greatly 
weakened, and Napoleon knew it. To recover this, to re- 
new his prestige by securing an increase of territory, he 
now resorted to diplomacy, seeking to appeal to the gener- 
osity or gratitude of Bismarck, having neglected to appeal 
to his fears. For a year negotiations went on, in 1866 and 
1867, between the two powers, looking to some possible 
enlargement of the boundaries of France. These negotia- 
tions concerned, now the left bank of the Rhine, now Luxem- 
burg, now Belgium. Bismarck drew them out in order 
to gain time and also evidence with which to discredit 
Napoleon still further. Then, at the ripe moment, he 
blocked every proposal, and no course was left open to the 
French Emperor but to adapt himself to his unhappy posi- 
tion. But French governmental circles, greatly chagrined 
and embittered, came more and more to entertain the idea 



FRICTION BETWEEN FRANCE AND PRUSSIA 289 

of war. The Emperor tried to persuade France that all 
these changes in central Europe had really increased the 
strength of France. The argument was labored, and, more- 
over, reacted most disastrously, for when in 1868 he urged 
the reform of the French army, largely along the lines of 
the Prussian organization, which had proved so successful, 
the Chamber acceded only in slight part, quoting his own 
assertion that France stood in Europe stronger than ever 
as a result of the Seven Weeks' War in Germany. Thus 
the one method of augmenting the influence of France was 
rejected, and Parliament must share the responsibility of 
the lack of preparation of 1870 with the Emperor and 
Liberals must share it with Conservatives. A few years 
earlier Napoleon might have forced such proposals through 
Parliament. In 1868 he was no longer in a position so 
to do. The Opposition was too numerous, and he had 
made too many enemies by his Italian and Mexican policies. 
Moreover, he had just increased the power of the legislature. 
And not for a moment admitting that the Empire was in 
danger, he could not use the greatest of all arguments — 
the safety of the state. 

From 1866 to 1870 the idea that ultimately a war would 
come between Prussia and France became familiar to the 
people and Governments of both countries. Many Frenchmen 
desired " revenge for Sadowa." Prussians were proud and 
elated at their two successful wars, and intensely conscious 
of their new position in Europe. The newspapers of both 
countries during the next four years were full of crimina- 
tion and recrimination, of abuse and taunt, the Government 
in neither case greatly discouraging their unwise conduct, 
at times even inspiring and directing it. Such an atmosphere 
was an excellent one for ministers who wanted war to work 
in, and both France and Prussia had just such ministers. Bismarck 

Bismarck believed such a war inevitable, and, in his opinion, ^^S^^^s a 

,.,, „ ,. .p war with 

it was desirable as the only way or completing the unmca- prance as 

tion of Germany, since Napoleon would never willingly con- inevitable. 



290 



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 



The 

Spanish 
candidacy 
of Leopold 
of Hohen- 
zollern. 



sent to the extension of the Confederation to include the 
South German states. All that he desired was that it should 
come at precisely the right moment, when Prussia was 
entirely ready, and that it should come by act of France, 
go that Prussia could pose before Europe as merely defend- 
ing herself against a wanton aggressor. In his Remi- 
niscences he avows that he entertained this belief as early 
as 1866 : " That a war with France would succeed the 
war with Austria lay in the logic of history " ; and again, 
" I did not doubt that a Franco-German war must take 
place before the construction of a United Germany could 
be realized." The unification of Germany being his supreme 
aim, he was bound by logic and ambition to see that that 
war occurred. 

Unfortunately, there entered in 1870 into the Foreign 
Office of France a pronounced and bitter opponent of Prus- 
sia, the Duke of Gramont, a reckless and unwise politician, 
whose brief career in office was to be very costly to his 
country. With two such willing ministers, a cause of war 
was not long in being found. It was offered in a form which 
did not directly concern either Germany or France, the 
filling of the vacant throne of Spain. 

In 1868 a revolution had occurred in Spain, which re- 
sulted in the overthroAv and exile of the Queen Isabella II. 
The Provisional Government which then arose proceeded upon 
the task, always delicate, of finding a new ruler. It chose 
Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern, a kinsman of the Kino^ of 
Prussia, who at first declined. Three times the offe. jf 
the Spanish crown was made to Leopold, twice in 1869, 
and again in March 1870. In an interview with Bismarck in 
May 1869 Benedetti, French ambassador at Berlin, made it 
apparent that the candidacy of the Prince would be resented 
by France. Bismarck nevertheless secured from Spain a 
fourth offer, and Leopold this time accepted, largely per- 
suaded thereto by Bismarck, sufficiently cognizant of the feel- 
ing of the French Emperor. The news that a Prussian Prince 



THE HOHENZOLLERN CANDIDACY 291 

had accepted the throne of Spain reached Paris by way of 
Madrid, July 2, 1870. Instantly great indignation was 
expressed in the newspapers. The excitement in Paris 
rapidly increased. Gramont declared in the Chamber that 
the election of the Prince was inadmissible as " upsetting 
to our disadvantage the present equilibrium of forces 
in Europe," and imperiling " the interests and honor of 
France." To prevent it, " we shall discharge our duty 
without hesitation and without weakness." Benedetti was 
ordered by the French Government to proceed at once to 
Ems, a watering resort near the Rhine, where King William 
was at the time, and to make a formal demand that the 
candidacy be withdrawn. Now neither Napoleon III, more 
and more exhausted by disease, nor the Prime Minister, 
Ollivier, desired war, though both were anxious for a diplo- 
matic victory. Nor did WiUiam I desire it. Moreover, 
the Governments of England, Austria, Russia, and Belgium 
labored in the interests of peace. On July 12th the can- The candi- 

didacy was announced withdrawn by the father of Prince ^^^^ '^^*^" 

■^ drawn. 

Leopold. 

The tension was immediately relieved: the war scare was 
over. Two men, however, were not pleased by this out- 
come, Gramont and Bismarck. This was, says a biogra- 
pher of Bismarck, " the severest check which Bismarck's 
policy had yet received; he had persuaded the Prince to 
accept against his will; he had persuaded the King reluc- 
tantly to keep the negotiations secret from Napoleon; how- 
eve, others might disguise the truth he knew that they 
had had to retreat from an untenable position, and retreat 
before the noisy insults of the French press and the open 
menace of the French Government." ^ Bismarck con- 
sidered the reverse so great and humiliating that he thought 
he must in self-respect resign and retire into private life. 

He was to be saved from this by the folly of the French ° ^° 

, . . the Duke of 

ministry, and by his own unscrupulousness. '' The ministry Gramont. 

* Headlam, Bismarck, 334. 



292 THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

has achieved," said Guizot, now a very old man, living in 
retirement, " the finest diplomatic victory which has been 
won in my lifetime." This victory was now thrown away. 
The whole matter was unwisely reopened and rendered far 
more acute by the French ministry, supported by the 
Parisian war party, which now made an additional demand, 
namely, that the King of Prussia should promise that this 
Hohenzollern candidacy should never be renewed. This 
demand was presented to William I by Benedetti, July 13th, 
in Ems. The King refused but with entire courtesy. In the 
meeting of the French ministers, held on the evening of the 
13th, it was not felt that this refusal made war necessary. 

Meanwliile King William had caused a description of the 
events of that day (July 13th) to be telegraphed to Bis- 
marck, who was in Berlin, leaving with him the decision as to 
whether the facts of the new French demand and his refusal 
to entertain it be published. Here was Bismarck's op- 
portunity, which he used ruthlessly and joyously to provoke 
the French to declare war. The form in which the Ems des- 
patch was published was intended by him to be " a red flag 
for the Gallic bull," and certainly fulfilled the intention. 
The Ems The Ems despatch was not falsified, as has been frequently 
espatc . asserted, but it was condensed in such a fashion that the 
negotiations at Ems appeared to have been sharp and dis- 
courteous and abruptly terminated, whereas they had been 
courteous and respectful on both sides. While the text of 
the Ems despatch was not changed save by excision, the tone 
of it was greatly and intentionally altered, so that the 
Prussians thought that their King, the French that their 
ambassador, had been insulted. The effect of its publication 
on the IJjth was instantaneous and malign. It aroused the 
indignation of both countries to fever heat. As if it were 
not sufficient, the newspapers of both teemed with false, abus- 
ive, and inflammatory accounts of the events at Ems. The 
voice of the advocates of peace was drowned in the general 
clamor. Napoleon did not wish war, but he was very ill, 



FRANCE DECLARES WAR 293 

and was swept from his real convictions by the war party. The war 

The Empress, it appears, urged it out of hatred of Prussia P^^^ty ^^ 

F3.ris 
as a Protestant nation, and in the beHef that it would 

strengthen the imperial throne. The ministry went with the 
current. No one in authority dared brave unpopularity In 
Paris, and consequently war credits were voted amid great 
excitement on July 15th and France entered into the valley 
of the shadow, Ollivier, head of the French ministry, de- 
clared that he accepted this war " with a light heart." 
Thiers, demanding that the Chamber be informed of the con- 
tents of the despatches which were prompting such perilous 
action and declaring that having gained " the essential thing 
we ought not to break because of a mere detail of form — 
ought not to effect a rupture on a question of touchiness " France 
was hissed in the Chamber. War was declared by France declares 
virtually on July 15th, technically on July 19th. Only ten ^^^ ^J^""^ 
members in the Chamber, among whom were Thiers and Gam- 
betta, voted against it. Paris resounded with cries, " On to 
Berlin ! " Victory seemed certain. The Minister of War was 
confident. The Minister of Foreign Affairs believed that 
within a few hours the triple alliance for which there had been 
negotiations for some time would be concluded with Austria 
and Italy. The war ^rew directly out of mere diplomatic 
fencing. The French people did not desire it, only the people 
of Paris, Inflamed by an official press. Indeed, until it was 
declared, the French people hardly knew of the matter of 
dispute. It came upon them unexpectedly. The war was 
made by the responsible heads of two Governments. It was In 
its origin in no sense national In either country. Its im- 
mediate occasion was trivial. But It was the cause of a 
remarkable display of patriotism In both countries. 

The war upon which the French ministry entered with 
so light a heart, was destined to prove the most disastrous 

in the history of their country. In every respect it was _ 

-'^ , ... German 

begun under singularly inauspicious circumstances. France states join 

declared war upon Prussia alone, but in a manner that Prussia. 



isolated. 



294 THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

threw the South German states, upon whose support she had 
counted, directly into the camp of Bismarck. They regarded 
the French demand, that the King of Prussia should pledge 
himself for all time to forbid the Prince of Hohenzollern's 
candidature, as unnecessary and insulting. At once Bavaria 
and Baden and Wiirtemberg joined the campaign on the side 
of Prussia. 
France Not only Prussia therefore but united Germany stood 

confronting France. Moreover, Bismarck's diplomacy was 
able to isolate France from the rest of Europe. Bismarck 
published a draft of a treaty drawn up some years before, 
between Prussia and France, but never signed, which pro- 
vided for the annexation of Belgium to France. France 
protested, but in vain, that the treaty had been dictated 
by Bismarck. This so worked upon English opinion, which 
has always opposed French extension northwards, that the 
English Government immediately proclaimed its neutrality. 
France had counted upon the ultimate aid of Austria, but 
Bismarck gained the support of Russia to this extent that 
Russia threatened to invade Austria if Austria supported 
France. Italy, too, was neutralized by the fact that she 
could not safely move alone. 

Thus at the beginning of the month of August it was 
clear that France would have no ally. The French military 
authorities made the serious mistake of grossly underestimat- 
ing the difficulty of the task before them. The Minister 
of War declared that France was ready, more than ready, 
that her preparations were more advanced than those of the 
enemy. The supreme folly of such an assertion was im- 
mediately shown. While the German armies mobilized and 
advanced toward the frontier with amazing swiftness, order, 
and ease, in the French army all was confusion. In Prussia 
everything had been for years prepared and orders only 
had to be taken out of their pigeonholes and dated. In 
France everything had to be improvised in the midst of 
unparalleled disorder. Particularly apparent was this in 



DISORGANIZATION OF THE FRENCH ARMY 295 

the case of the reserves. It frequently happened that men The French 
living in the east of France must cross to the west and get ^'^y* 
their arms and uniform, then recross to the east to join 
their regiments. Not only was time lost, but the railway 
system was deranged by the crowds of men traveling to 
and fro for this purpose. Also the trains, thus crowded 
with soldiers, were prevented from transporting adequate 
supplies. 

The confusion, the lack of preparation, the defects of 
the military machine were incredible and were apparent from 
the very first day. Despatches from corps commanders are 
all in the same strain. " We need everything," wrote Gen- 
eral de Failly on July 19th. " We are in want of every- 
thing," telegraphed Bazaine on July 21st. " Everything is 
completely lacking," announced another a little later. 
Marshal Leboeuf who, as Minister of War, had declared 
that everything was ready even to the last button on the 
last gaiter, soon lost his optimism, and on July 28th tele- 
graphed that his troops could not advance because they 
lacked bread. Tents were frequently wanting, or there were, 
tents without tent pins. Pots and kettles, medicines for 
men and for horses, means of transport, wagons, blankets, 
were frequently lacking. There were cannon without ammu- 
nition, horses without harnesses, machine guns without the 
men who knew how to fire them. Examples might be end- 
lessly multiplied. More, however, are needless to show the 
chaos that reigned in the French army. Frequently soldiers 
and even generals went astray, not able to find their places. 
" Have arrived at Belfort," telegraphed General Michel on 
July 21st. " Can't find my brigade ; can't find the general 
of the Division. What shall I do? Don't know where my 
regiments are." It has been observed that this document is 
probably unique In military records. 

But the French were Inferior to the Germans In numbers ^^® numer- 
— __ ic3.1 ill" 

also. They could put Into the field hardly 300,000 men, fgrioritv of 

and they had no reserves worth speaking of upon which to the French. 



^96 



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 



The 

Germans 
invade 
France. 



draw. The Germans could put into the field nearly 450,000 
men, and had very large reserves which could be gradually 
made into new armies. Again, on the French side there 
was confusion in the direction of the forces. The Emperor 
was very ill, of the disease of wliich he died three years later, 
yet, irresolute and feeble, he was at the outset commander- 
in-chief. During the first two weeks of the war he made 
three different arrangements concerning the command of the 
Army of the Rhine. 

The French had dreamed of a swift invasion of Germany. 
Once in central Germany they thought that the South 
Germans would rise to their aid, that then Austria and Italy 
would join, and the march to Berlin would begin. Nothing 
of the sort occurred. Their officers had maps of Germany, 
which they never needed, few of France. The Germans 
crossed into Alsace and Lorraine, and between August 6th and 
September 2nd the French suffered reverse after reverse. On 
the former da}^ MacMahon was defeated in the battle of 
Worth and subsidiary engagements. The French fought 
bravely and the Germans paid heavily for their success. 
Nevertheless, it was an unmistakable victory. MacMahon 
retreated rapidly to the great camp at Chalons, east of Paris. 

West of Worth the Germans defeated the French on the 
same day (August 6th) at Forbach and Spicheren, and 
drove the army back toward Metz, one of the strongest 
fortresses in France. The German armies pressed on, en- 
deavoring to prevent Bazaine, now commander of Metz, from 
retreating and joining MacMahon. This they succeeded in 
doing in a series of very bloody battles, Borny, to the east 
of Metz, on August 14th; Mars-la-Tours, to the west, on 
August 16th; and Gravelotte, also to the west, on August 
18th. The result was that Bazaine, with the principal French 
army, was bottled up in Metz, surrounded by Germans. 

The Emperor, now fearing to return to Paris with these 
defeats undermining his throne, conceived the unwise plan 
of having MacMahon's army move from Chalons, eastward. 



THE FALL OF THE SECOND EMPIRE 297 

to the relief of Metz. This it attempted but did not accom- The battle 
plish. On September 1st the battle of Sedan was fought, ° ^"" 
with the result that the French were surrounded by the 
Germans. On the next day, September 2nd, the French 
army surrendered to the Germans. Napoleon himself was 
taken prisoner of war. The French lost, on September 1st, 
about 17,000 in killed and wounded, and 21,000 captured 
by the enemy. On the 2nd over 81,000 officers and men 
surrendered and became prisoners of war. 

Disasters so appalling resounded throughout the world. 
France no longer had an army; one had capitulated at 
Sedan ; the other was locked up in Metz. The early defeats 
of August had been announced in Paris by the Government 
as victories. The deception could no longer be maintained. 
On September 3rd this despatch was received from the 
Emperor : " The army has been defeated and is captive ; 
I myself am a prisoner." As a prisoner he was no longer 
head of the government of France; there was, as Thiers 
said, a "vacancy of power." On Sunday, September 4!th, 
the Legislative Body was convened. But it had no time to 
deliberate. The mob Invaded the hall shouting, " Down The fall of 
with the Empire ! Long live the Republic ! " Gambetta, *^^ Empire. 
Jules Favre and Jules Ferry, followed by the crowd, pro- 
ceeded to the Hotel de Ville and there proclaimed the Re- 
public. The Empress fled. A Government of National De- 
fense was organized, with General Trochu at its head, which 
was the actual government of France during the rest of 
the war. 

The Franco-German war lasted about six months, from 
the first of August 1870, when fighting began, to about the 
first of February 1871. It falls naturally into two periods, 
the imperial and the republican. During the first, which 
was limited to the month of August, the regular armies 
were, as we have seen, destroyed or bottled up. Then the 
Empire collapsed and the Emperor was a prisoner in Ger- 
many. The second period lasted five months. France, under 



298 



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 



The Gov- 
ernment of 
National 
Defense. 



the Government of National Defense, made a remarkably 
courageous and spirited defense under the most discourag- 
ing conditions. 

The new Government of National Defense, thus impro- 
vised, and representing only a spontaneous movement of 
opinion, never legally sanctioned, was the government of 
France till the close of the war. It threw all the blame of 
the war on Napoleon, and declared itself ready for peace; 
only it would not consent to a peace involving the violation 
of the territory of France. " Not an inch of our soil will 
we cede," said Favre, " not a stone of our fortresses." As 
Germany intended annexations as a result of her victories, 
this utterance meant that the war must continue. 

The Germans, leaving a sufficient army to carry on the 
siege of Metz, advanced toward Paris. They began the 
siege of that city on September 19th. This siege, one of 
the most famous in history, lasted four months, and aston- 
ished Europe. Immense stores had been collected in the 
city, the citizens were armed, and the defense was energetic. 
The Parisians hoped to hold out long enough to enable 
new armies to be organized, and diplomacy possibly to 
intervene. To accomplish the former a delegation from 
the Government of National Defense, headed by Gambetta, 
escaped from Paris by balloon, and established a branch 
seat of government first at Tours, then at Bordeaux. Gam- 
betta, by his immense energy, his eloquence, his patriotism, 
was able to raise new armies, whose resistance astonished the 
Germans, but as they had not time to be thoroughly trained, 
they were unsuccessful. They could not break the immense 
circle of iron that surrounded Paris. After the overthrow 
of the Empire the war was reduced to the siege of Paris, 
and the attempts of these improvised armies to break that 
siege. These attempts were rendered all the more hopeless 
The fall of by the fall of Metz (October 27, 1870). Six thousand 
officers and 173,000 men were forced by impending starva- 
tion to surrender, with hundreds of cannon and immense 



Ketz. 



THE SIEGE OF PARIS 299 

war supplies, the greatest capitulation " recorded in the 
history of civilized nations." A month earlier, on Septem- 
ber 27th, Strassburg had surrendered, and 19,000 soldiers 
had become prisoners of war. 

The capitulation of Metz was particularly disastrous be- 
cause it made possible the sending of more German armies 
to reinforce the siege of Paris, and to attack the forces 
which Gambetta was, by prodigies of effort, creating in the 
rest of France. These armies could not get to the relief 
of Paris, nor could the troops within Paris break through 
to them. The siege became simply a question of endurance. 

The Germans began the bombardment of the city early The siege 
in January. Certain sections suffered terribly, and were ^ans. 
ravaged by fires. Famine stared the Parisians in the face: 
After November 20th there was no more beef or lamb to be 
had; after December 15th only thirty grammes of horse meat 
a day per person, which, moreover, cost about two dollars 
and a half a pound; after January 15th the amount of 
bread, a wretched stuff, was reduced to 300 grammes. Peo- 
ple ate anything they could get, dogs, cats, rats. The 
market price for rats was two francs apiece. By the 
31st of January, there would be nothing left to eat. Addi- 
tional suffering arose from the fact that the winter was one 
of the coldest on record. Coal and fire wood were ex- 
hausted. Trees in the Champs Elysees and the Bois de 
Boulogne were cut down, and fires built in the public squares 
for the poor. Wine froze in casks. On January 28th, 
with famine almost upon her, Paris capitulated after an 
heroic resistance. The armistice of Versailles was concluded 
which really closed the war. 

The armistice was designed to permit elections to be Election of 
held throughout France for an assembly that should pro- ^ National 
nounce upon the question of peace. As peace would involve 
the cession of French territory to the victors, the Government 
of National Defense felt that the people of France should 
themselves decide a matter so vital. Elections were accord- 



300 



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 



Thiers 
chosen 
Chief of 
the Execu- 
tive. 



Treaty of 
rrankfort. 



inglj held on February 8, 1871. The peasants voted over- 
whelmingly for those favoring peace. As Gambetta, leader 
of the Republicans, favored war to the bitter end, they 
voted largely against the republican candidates. Thus the 
first Assembly, elected under the Third Republic, was com- 
posed of a majority of Monarchists, divided into two wings, 
the Legitimists and the Orleanists, and a minority of Re- 
publicans. Only a handful of Bonapartists were chosen, 
so vast was the disgrace now attached to that name. The 
Assembly met at Bordeaux, February 12th, and, believing 
that if France continued the war she might ultimately be 
annihilated, believing that the fundamental necessity of self- 
preservation demanded an immediate cessation, voted over- 
whelmingly for peace. 

The Government of National Defense now laid down its 
powers, yielding to the National Assembly. This Assembly 
chose Thiers as " Chief of the Executive Power," and em- 
powered him to negotiate with Bismarck for peace. The 
question of the permanent government of France was post- 
poned until a more convenient season. Thiers was now the 
most popular man in France. He had, in July 1870, done 
his utmost to prevent France from going to war. He had, 
during the war, j ourneyed from one capital of Europe to an- 
other, London, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Florence, on a futile 
diplomatic mission, seeking to win foreign support for France. 
He was over seventy years of age, but was about to render 
his most valuable services to France. 

The terms of peace granted by Bismarck were extra- 
ordinarily severe. They were laid down in the preliminary 
Peace of Versailles, February 26, 1871. France must 
pay an indemnity of five thousand milHon francs ($1,000,- 
000,000) within three years. She must cede Alsace and a 
large part of Lorraine, including the important fortress 
of Metz. She was to support a German army of occupa- 
tion, which should be gradually withdrawn as the instal- 
ments of the war indemnity were paid. After much contro- 



GERMANY AND ITALY ACHIEVE UNITY 301 

versy these preliminaries were embodied in the final Treaty 

of Frankfort, signed May 10, 1871, and ratified by the 

Assembly of Bordeaux by 433 votes to 98. 

Meanwhile other events had occurred as a result of this ^^^^ ^^ *^* 

war. Italy had completed her unification by seizing the 

city of Rome, thus terminating the temporal rule of the Pope. 

The Pope had been supported there by a French garrison. 

This was withdrawn as a result of the battle of Sedan, and 

the troops of Victor Emmanuel attacked the Pope's own Completion 

troops, defeated them after a slight resistance, and entered ^ .^^]f 
^ ' & ' unification. 

Rome on the 20th of September 1870. The unity of Italy 

was now consummated and Rome became the capital of 

the Kingdom. 

A more important consequence of the war was the com- Completion 

pletion of the unification of Germany, and the creation of German 

. -r.- 1 1 1 1 . 1 unification, 

the present German Empire. Bismarck had desired a war 

with France as necessary to complete the unity of Germany. 
Whether necessary or not, at least that end was now secured. 
After the early German victories, and during the siege of 
Paris, negotiations were carried on between Prussia and the 
South German states, looking toward their entrance into the 
Confederation. In the case of Bavaria and Wiirtemberg, 
states of considerable size, concessions had to be made, pre- 
serving to them certain powers not retained by the other 
states. Finally treaties were drawn up and the King of 
Bavaria, prompted and directed by Bismarck, urged 
the King of Prussia, in behalf of the princes, to 
assume the headship of united Germany, and to revive the 
Empire. 

Finally on the 18th of January 1871, surrounded by the 
princes of Germany and by the generals of the army, King 
William I was proclaimed German Emperor. This 
memorable ceremony is one of the supreme ironies of history 
as it occurred in the Hall of Mirrors, in the palace of 
Versailles, itself a mighty monument and symbol of 
the power and pride of Louis XIV, a power which 



302 THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 

had been secured to some extent by the humiliation of 
Germany. 

The war of 1866 had resulted in the expulsion of Austria 
from Germany and from Italy. The war of 1870 completed 
the unification of both countries. Berlin became the capital 
of a federal Empire, Rome of a unified Kingdom. 



It 
5 

CHAPTER XIV 

THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

The Franco-German war completed the unification of Growth of 
Germany. That unification was, however, no by-product 
of a war, no astounding improvisation of a genius in politics Germany 
and diplomacy. The foundations had been laid before, since 1815. 
and the superstructure had been slowly and painfully built 
up. Many forces had long been co-operating, as we have 
seen, and had at last converged toward this triumphant 
issue. Most effective of all was the passion for nationality, 
which gave to the nineteenth century such elevation of emotion 
everywhere. But all these factors might have failed of re- 
sults in the domain of politics had it not been for the rise of a 
forceful and sagacious statesman to a position of vast power 
in the Prussian state. How he used that power has been 
shown. 

The Constitution of the new state was adopted immediately Constitu- 

after the close of the war with France, and went into force ., 

the new 

April 16, 1871. In most respects it is simply the Constitu- German 
tion of the North German Confederation of 1867. The name Empire. 
Confederation gives way to that of Empire, and the name of 
Emperor is substituted for that of President. But the Em- 
pire is a confederation, consisting of twenty-five states, and 
one imperial territory, Alsace-Lorraine. The King of 
Prussia is ipso facto German Emperor. The Bundesrath 
and the Reichstag continue, enlarged by the admission of 
new members from the new states, but with practically the 
same powers. The Emperor declares war with the consent of The 
the Bundesrath ; he makes treaties which, if they concern Emperor, 
matters that fall within the sphere of imperial legislation, 
must be ratified by Parliament. He is head of the army and 
navy. He is assisted by a Chancellor whom he appoints, and 

303 



304 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



The Bun- 
desrath. 



The 
Reichstag. 



A confed- 
eration of 
monarchical 
states. 



whom he removes, who is not responsible to the Parliament but 
to him alone. Under the Chancellor are various secretaries 
of state, who simply administer departments, but who do not 
form a cabinet responsible to Parliament. The Empire is a 
constitutional monarchy, but not a parliamentary one. 

Laws are made by the Bundesrath and the Reichstag. 
The Bundesrath consists of delegates appointed by the rulers 
of the different states. The votes of each state, ranging 
in number from one to seventeen, are cast only as a unit and 
that according to the instructions of the state govern- 
ment. The Reichstag is the only popular element in the 
Empire. It consists of 397 members, elected for a term 
of five years by the voters, that is, men twenty-five years of 
age or older. The powers of the Reichstag are inferior to 
those of most of the other popular chambers of Europe. It 
neither makes nor unmakes ministries. While it, in con- 
junction with the Bundesrath, votes the appropriations, 
certain ones, notably those for the army, are voted for a 
period of years. Its consent is required for new taxes, 
whereas taxes previously levied continue to be collected 
without the consent of Parliament being secured again. The 
matters on which Parliament may legislate are those con- 
cerning army, navy, commerce, tariffs, railways, postal 
system, telegraphs, civil and criminal law. On matters not 
within the jurisdiction of the Empire each state legislates 
as it chooses.^ 

The German Empire is unique among federal governments 
in that it is a confederation of monarchical states, which, 
moreover, are very unequal in size and population, ranging 
from Prussia with a population of 37,000,000, and cover- 
ing two-thirds of the territory, down to Schaumburg-Lippe, 
with a population of 45,000. Three members of the Empire 
are republics: Liibeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. The rest 
are monarchies. All have constitutions and legislatures, 

^ The constitution is given in Howard, The German Empire, 403-435, 
and in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I, 325-351. 



\ 



:n 




RihJo 



d^ Cppenhai 
eelanti^ 



[)FalstPr 




OuVekmunster .iv-<^^<^^ 

i'(5 










\Wfierf |^f&/^i-^r^^^<f^^ /"y-r^*^"?^^ I ^orfilmks^a-Euihben 




^VJJsl^'enX 



■hied } o Y^-~^-^i^y-^^^ « s s e /^#^%-s,cr- 

— r~^ ^^ -^ fJ^"^-mm ^} ^ ! Sol der 



Widkba^en® 












BmIhti 






THE 

f;EK>L\X EMPIRE 
19 lO. 

.'ihhri'vintinns: 

BBniiiswieA- l^rLippe 






\0'lft'nl)urff 



■ illi'iiliurg. 

\^.hl:Sii.r<> ■Uniiiiii/eii - !^\\'.-S/u:r tH'/j/mi: 

I S.L -Srhiiiiiiihiirij l.iiirf S i; Si-linnrzh'g RiirliiMmH. 

J ^.^.iii1imii7.himiSinili%ilisii ^\'.- Wiildeiii 



I'JmilisU .H ill' A 



_j. 



BISMARCK CHANCELLOR OF THE EMPIRE 305 

more or less liberal. This confederation differs from other 
governments of its class in that the states are of unequal 
voting power in both houses, one state largely preponderat- 
ing, Prussia, a fact explained by its great size, its popula- 
tion, and the importance of its historic role. 

Since 1871, Germany has had three Emperors, William I 
(1871-1888), Frederick III (March 9-June 15, 1888), and 
William II, since 1888. 

The reign of William I, as Emperor, falls into two periods ; Reign of 

from 1871 to 1878, a period of internal administrative re- 1'",^^^°'^ ^ 
. . , IT William I. 

forms, and of bitter struggles with the Roman Catholic 

Church — and from 1878 till 1888, the year of his death, a 
period characterized by the prominence of economic ques- 
tions, of protection to industries, of social reforms, and of 

the acquisition of colonies. During all this time Bismarck Bismarck's 

. , command- 
was the Emperor's chief minister or Chancellor. Having m ^^^ position. 

nine years made the King, whom he found upon the point 
of abdicating, the most powerful ruler in Europe, and having 
given Germans unity, he remained the chief figure in the 
state twenty years longer until his resignation in 1890. 

His position now was one of immense prestige and author- 
ity. Much legislation rendered desirable by the new situ- 
ation was passed in the next few years. Imperial offices 
were organized. An imperial bureau of railroads was estab- 
lished (1873). In 1873 monometallism was adopted in the 
place of the confusion of groschen, kreutzer, which hindered 
trade. New coins were issued, bearing on one side the effigy 
of the Emperor, and on the other the arms of the Empire — 
" going to preach to the people the good news of unity." 
The Imperial Bank was erected in 1875, and, in 1877, elab- 
orate laws on civil and criminal procedure, on bankruptcy, 
on the judicial organization, and still later, a civil code, 
were passed. A new system of local government was adopted 
for cantons, circles, or provinces, whereby the judicial and 
police authority of the nobility was abolished, and more 
power was given the voters. 



306 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



THE KULTURKAMPF 



A religious 
conflict. 



Causes 
of the 
Kultur- 
kampf. 



No sooner was the new Empire established than it was 
torn by a fierce religious conflict that lasted many years, 
the so-called Kulturkampf, or war for civilization, a contest 
between the State and the Roman Catholic Church. Ger- 
many had, since the time of Luther, been divided among 
the Protestants and Catholics, the Protestants predominate 
ing. South German states, Bavaria, Baden, were Catholic. 
In Prussia, the stronghold of Protestantism, there were two 
strong Catholic sections, to the east in the Polish provinces, 
and to the west along the Rhine. Many causes contributed 
to the fanning of religious passions at this time. By the 
Prussian Constitution of 1850 almost complete liberty of 
action and control of organization were granted the Church, 
which availed itself most energetically of the advantage thus 
offered. Religious societies, monastic orders, missions, were 
established widely and conducted an active and uncommonly 
successful propaganda during the next fifteen years. Prom- 
inent among these were the Jesuits. Two classes were 
alarmed by this progress, the orthodox Protestants, and 
those devoted to freedom of thought, who dreaded the rise 
of religious fanaticism as prejudicial to culture. 

The wars with Austria and France increased the religious 
disturbance. They were victories by a Protestant state 
over two strongly Catholic powers. Leadership in Germany 
had passed from Austria, in Europe from Austria and France, 
to the principal Protestant nation of the continent, Prussia. 
In the Seven Weeks' War, the Catholic states, Bavaria, Baden, 
had sided with Austria. It was widely believed that the 
French war had been largely occasioned by the Jesuits, 
working through the Empress Eugenie, and animating her 
ardent desire to humble the growing Protestant power. Bis- 
marck shared this belief. The loss of the Pope's temporal 
power just at this time, 1870, embittered Catholics. During 
the war of 1870 the Archbishop of Posen went to Versailles 



DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY 307 

to solicit Bismarck's intervention in behalf of the Papacy. 

He was coldly received. Apparently with the purpose of 

bringing political pressure to bear upon the Chancellor, a 

Catholic party was organized at once, the so-called Center, Formation 

and in the election to the first Imperial Parliament it won of the 

sixty-three seats ; in the election to the Prussian legislature ^^^ ^^ 
•^ . . . Party, 

or Landtag, forty-seven. This party desired the restoration 

of the temporal power and the independence of the Church. 
The immediate cause of the conflict was the proclamation 
by the Vatican Council in 1870 of the new dogma of papal Dogma 
infallibility, the dogma that the Pope can not err " when ^^ Papal 
he defines ex cathedra, and in virtue of his apostolic authority ^jji^ty 
any doctrine of faith, or morals," a dogma that shocked 
Liberals thoroughly penetrated with the modern scientific 
spirit, and that seemed to politicians to assert that the 
Pope was superior to all rulers, and had a claim upon the 
loyalty of the faithful superior to that of their sovereigns. 

On the promulgation of this dogma a conflict broke out 
between the Church and the State. In the Vatican Council 
the Geraian bishops had opposed the new dogma, but had 
been in the minority. It was now required that all bishops 
and priests should subscribe to it; the large majority did 
so, but some refused. A leading opponent was Dollinger, 
a distinguished professor and theologian. Ordered to ex- 
plain the dogma in his university of Munich he denied the 
principles on which it was based. " As a Christian, a theo- 
logian, an historian and a citizen, I cannot accept this 
doctrine," he declared. He was accordingly excommuni- 
cated. As an answer to this the university elected him as 
its Rector. The conflict quickly widened, aff'ecting schools 
and parishes. The dissidents called themselves Old Catho- ^^^ ^^^ 
lies, proclaiming their adherence to historic Catholicism, but 
rejecting merely this addition to their creed as false. These 
men were excommunicated and deprived of their positions 
as priests or teachers. People were forbidden to attend 
worship in churches where they officiated, students to attend 



308 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

the lectures of such professors. The Old Catholics thereupon 
appealed to the imperial and state governments for pro- 
tection. A religious war was shortly in progress, which grew 
more bitter each year. First the Imperial Parliament for- 
bade the religious orders to engage in teaching; then, in 
1872, it expelled the Jesuits from Germany. Of all legisla- 

The Falk tion enacted during this struggle the Falk or May Laws of 
the Prussian legislature were the most important (passed in 
May of three successive years, 1873, 1874, 1875). Bis- 
marck supported them on the ground that the contest was 
political, not religious, that there must be no state within 
the state, no power considering itself superior to the estab- 
lished authorities. The State must be lay. He also be- 
lieved that the whole movement was conducted by those 
opposed to German unity. Anything that imperiled that 
unity must be crushed. These May Laws gave the State 
large powers over the education and appointment of the 
clergy. They forbade the Roman Catholic Church to in- 
tervene in any way in civil affairs, or to coerce citizens 
or officials ; they required that all clergymen should pass 
the regular state examination of the gymnasium, and should 
study theology for three years at a state university; that 
all Catholic seminaries should be subject to state inspection. 
They also established control over the appointment and 
dismissal of priests. A law was passed making civil mar- 
riage compulsory. This was to reduce the power that priests 
could exercise by refusing to marry a Catholic and a Protest- 
ant, and now even Old Catholics. Religious orders were 
suppressed. 

Conflict of Against these laws the Catholics indignantly protested. 
The Pope declared them null and void; the clergy refused 
to obey them, and the faithful rallied to the support of 
the clergy. To enforce them the Government resorted to 
fines, imprisonment, deprivation of salary, expulsion from 
the country. The conflict spread everywhere, into little 
villages, as well as into the cities, into the universities 



RESISTANCE OF CATHOLICS 309 

and schools. It dominated politics for several years. 
In over a thousand parishes in Prussia, all religious services 
were suspended and churches were closed. There was no 
priest to baptize or to marry. Eight out of the twelve 
bishoprics were vacant. One bishop had fled to Austria, 
another was in hiding in a little village in Holland, and in 
order to visit his fellow-Catholics at Munich, had disguised 
himself as a peddler; another, a cardinal, had taken refuge 
within the Vatican itself. The national life was more and 
more troubled, and the end was not being accomplished. 
Indeed, the resistance of the Catholics only stiffened under 
what they called this " Diocletian persecution." In the 
elections of 1877 the Center succeeded in returning ninety- 
two members, and was the largest party in the Reichstag. 
It was evident that the policy was a failure. Other ques- 
tions were becoming prominent, of an economic and social 
character, and Bismarck wished to be free to handle them. 
Particularly requiring attention, in his opinion, and that of 
William I, was a new and most menacing party, the 
Socialist. Bismarck therefore prepared to retreat. The Bismarck's 
death of Pius IX in 1878, and the election of Leo XIII, ^^*^^^*' 
a more conciliatory and diplomatic Pope, facilitated the 
change of policy. From 1878 to 1887 the anti-clerical 
legislation was in one detail after another abandoned. First 
the May Laws were suspended, in 1879; then rescinded in 
1886; religious orders were permitted to return, with the 
exception of the Jesuits (1887). Of the various laws only 
those concerning civil marriage and the civil registration 
of births and deaths, and the state inspection of schools 
were left. In return for the measures surrendered Bismarck 
gained the support of the Center for laws which he now had 
more at heart. 

The religious conflict lasted fifteen years, and was acute 
during five. Its only permanent result was to consolidate 
and strengthen the Center or Catholic party, which has 
been ever since the strongest party in this Protestant country. 



310 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



Financial 
and in- 
dustrial 
questions. 



Adoption 
of the 
policy of 
protection. 



BISMARCK AND THE POLICY OF PROTECTION 

In 1879, Bismarck brought about a profound change in 
the financial and industrial policy of Germany by inducing 
Parliament to abandon the policy of a low tariff, and 
comparative freo trade, and to adopt a system of high 
tariff and pronounced protection. His purposes were two- 
fold. He wished to increase the revenue of the Empire and 
to encourage native industries. The income of the Empire 
consisted mainly of customs duties. Flirther funds if neces- 
sary were furnished by the several states, their quotas being 
apportioned according to population. Now the revenue 
from customs proved insufficient. For some years there had 
been a deficit, which involved heavier and heavier taxation 
of the states, to enable them to meet the assessments. If 
the revenue of the Empire should be increased so that it 
could meet its own expenses and have a surplus, its political 
strength would be greatly augmented. For, instead of ap- 
pealing to the states for contributions, it could distribute the 
surplus to the states, thus relieving them of taxation for 
federal purposes ; and could also use it as a fund for the 
social reforms which Bismarck had in mind and which will 
shortly be described. 

Moreover, Bismarck now desired high tariff duties in order 
to protect and encourage home industries. In adopting 
the principle of protection, he was not influenced, he asserted, 
by the theories of economists, but by his own observation 
of facts. In his speech of the 2nd of May 1879, in which 
he introduced his protective policy, he said that he did 
not propose to discuss protection and free trade in the 
abstract. He observed that while England was the only 
nation following the latter policy, France and Austria and 
Russia and the United States were pronounced adherents of 
the former, and that it was too much to ask that Germany 
should permanently remain the dupe of an amiable error. 
" We have hitherto," he said, " owing to our policy of the 



THE POLICY OF PROTECTION 311 

open door been the dumping-ground for the over-production 
of other countries. It is this, in my opinion, that has de- 
pressed prices in Germany, that has prevented the growth 
of our industries, the development of our economic life. Let 
us but close the door, let us raise the somewhat higher barrier 
which I am now proposing, and see to it that at least we 
preserve for German industry the same market which we are 
now good-naturedly allowing foreigners to exploit. . . . 
The fact is that our condition is unsatisfactory and, in my 
opinion, is worse than that of any of our protectionist neigh- 
bors. If the dangers of protection were as great as they Its advan- 

are painted by enthusiastic free-traders, France would have ^^^ V^ovt 

... l>y tlie 

been a rumed and impoverished country long ago, because of history 

the theories which she has followed ever since the time of Col- of other 
bert. . . . For the abstract teachings of science in "^*^o^S' 
this connection I care not a straw. I base my opinion on ex- 
perience, the experience of our own time. I see that protec- 
tionist countries are prospering, that free-trade countries are 
retrograding and that great and powerful England, the 
mighty athlete, who, having hardened her sinews, stepped out 
into the open market and said: 'Who will fight me? I am 
ready for any and all,' even she is gradually returning to- 
ward protection, and will in a few years adopt it, in order to 
keep for herself at least the English market." ^ 

On another occasion Bismarck pointed out that England 
had adopted free trade only after having given such ample 
protection to her industries that they were able to outstrip 
all others in the world. Only then did she dare to issue her 
challenge. He cited the remarkable development of the 
United States after " the most gigantic and expensive war of 
all history," as proof of his contention. " Because it is my 
deliberate opinion that the prosperity of the United States Germany- 
is chiefly due to her system of protection, I urge that Ger- jjj^itate the 
many has now reached the point where it is necessary that she United 
follow her example." States. 

^ Kohl, Die politischen Reden des Fiirsten Bismarck, VIII, 11-33. 



312 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

Bismarck won the day, though not without difficulty. 
Germany entered upon a period of protection, wliich, grow- 
ing higher and applied to more and more industries, has 
continued ever since. Bismarck believed that Germany must 
become rich in order to be strong ; that she could only 
become rich by manufactures ; and that she could have 
The system manufactures only by giving them protection. The system 
gradually ^^^^g ^oj.]^g(j q^^ gradually and piecemeal, as he could not 
carry his whole plan at once. By means of the taritf Bis- 
marck wished to assure Germans the home market. Not 
only has that been largely accomplished, but by its means the 
foreign market also has been widened. Through offering 
concessions to foreign nations for concessions from them, 
Germany has gained for her manufactured products an en- 
trance into many other countries, which was denied them 
before. The prodigious expansion of German industry after 
1880 is regarded as a vindication of this policy. 

BISMARCK AND SOCIALISM 

The growth In 1878 Bismarck turned his attention to the Socialist 
of Socialism. pg^j.^y which had for some time been growing, and now 
seemed menacing. That party was founded by Ferdinand 
Lassalle, a Socialist of 1848, much influenced by the French 
school of that day. The party, originally appearing in 1848, 
was shortly broken up by persecution and did not reappear 
until 1863. In 1865 Lassalle founded a journal called the 
Social Democrat. In opposition to this party a somewhat 
different Socialist group was led by Karl Marx. These two 
were rivals until 1875, when a fusion was effected and the 
party platform was adopted at Gotha. In 1871 the Socialists 
elected two members to the Reichstag, three years later their 
representation increased to nine, and in 1877 to twelve. The 
Socialist votes polled in the first ordinary returns were: in 
1871, 124,655 out of a total of 3,892,160 ; 1874, 351,952 out 
of 5,190,254 ; and 1877, 493,288 out of 5,401,021. 

The steady growth of this party aroused the alarm of the 



MEASURES AGAINST THE SOCIALISTS 313 

ruling classes of Gennany, and, as its aims were revolutionary Alarm of 
and destructive of the entire existing order, it was a more J^^g^^ ^"^ 
serious enemy than the Center and Ultramontane party. 
William I regarded Socialism as his personal enemy, and 
considered himself commissioned by God to combat it. Bis- 
marck had never yet proposed any comprehensive programme 
against it, but he had long hated the party, as was natural, 
considering his training and environment, and considering 
also the declarations of the Socialists themselves. Their 
leaders, Liebknecht and Bebel, had opposed the North Ger- 
man Confederation, the war with France, the annexation of 
Alsace and Lorraine. The Socialists expressed openly and 
freely their entire opposition to the existing order in Ger- 
many. It was only a question of time when they must clash 
violently with the man who had helped so powerfully to 
create that order, and whose life-work henceforth was to 
consolidate it. Again, the Socialist party was radically 
democratic, and Bismarck hated democracy. A conflict be- 
tween men representing the very opposite poles of opinion 
was inevitable. The occasion came in 1878, when two at- Attempts 
tempts were made upon the life of the aged Emperor, the ^^ ^^^ 
first on May 11th, and the second on June 2nd, the latter Emperor, 
proving very serious. These attempts upon the life of a 
man who was their hero horrified and angered the people. 
The would-be assassins had acted of their own motion, but 
they were Socialists. The Socialists denounced their acts, 
nevertheless public opinion held them responsible. Bismarck 
determined to use this opportunity to crush them once for 
all. He would use two methods, one stern repression of 
Socialist agitation, the other amelioration of the conditions 
of the working class, conditions which alone, he believed, 
caused them to listen to the false and deceptive doctrines 
of the Socialist leaders. 

First came repression. In October 1878 a law of great Severe 

HlG3,SlirGS 

severity, Intended to stamp out completely all Socialist against the 
propaganda, was passed by the Imperial Parliament. It Socialists. 



314 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



Their 
failure. 



Continued 
growth 
of the 
Socialist 
party. 



forbade all associations, meetings and publications having 
for their object " the subversion of the social order," or in 
which " socialistic tendencies " should appear. It gave the 
police large powers of interference, arrest, and expulsion from 
the country. Martial law might be proclaimed where de- 
sirable, which meant that, as far as Socialists were con- 
cerned, the ordinary courts would cease to protect individual 
liberties. Practically a mere decree of a police official 
sufficed to expel from Germany any one suspected or accused 
of being a Socialist. This law was enacted for a period of 
four years. It was later twice renewed and remained in force 
until 1890. It was vigorously applied. According to statis- 
tics furnished by the Socialists themselves, 1400 publica- 
tions were suppressed, 1500 persons were imprisoned, 900 
banished, during these twelve years. One might not read the 
works of Lassalle, for instance, even in a public library. 

This law, says a biographer of Bismarck, is very disap- 
pointing. " We find the Government again having recourse 
to the same means for checking and guarding opinion which 
Mettemich had used fifty years before." ^ It was, moreover, 
an egregious failure. For twelve years the Socialists carried 
on their propaganda in secret. It became evident that their 
power lay in their ideas and in the economic conditions of 
the working classes, rather than in formal organizations, 
which might be broken up. A paper was published for 
them in Switzerland and every week thousands of copies 
found their way into the hands of workingmen in Germany, 
despite the utmost vigilance of the police. Persecution in 
their case, as in that of the Roman Catholics, only rendered 
the party more resolute and active. At first it seemed that 
the law would realize the aims of its sponsors, for in the 
elections of 1881, the first after its passage, the Socialist 
vote fell from about 493,000 to about 312,000. But in 
1884 it rose to 549,000; in 1887 to 763,000; in 1890 to 
1,427,000, resulting in the election of thirty-five members to 

^ Headlam, Bismarck, 409. 



STATE SOCIALISM 315 

the Reichstag. In that year the laws were not renewed. 
The Socialists came out of their contest with Bismarck 
with a popular and a parliamentary vote increased three- 
fold. 

But Bismarck had at no time intended to rest content 
with merely repressive measures. He had purposed from the 
beginning to effect such sweeping reforms in the conditions 
of the working classes that they would see that the State 
was their true benefactor, and would rally around it, leaving 
the Socialist party stranded and with no further reason for 
existence. In the very year 1878 he said in the Reichstag, 
" I will further every endeavor which positively aims at im- 
proving the condition of the working classes," and he 
promised to consider " any positive proposal " coming from 
the Socialists " for fashioning the future in a sensible way." 
In this he and Emperor William I were in entire accord, as 
they had not been in the Kulturkampf. The Emperor in 
opening the Reichstag in 1879, said, " A remedy cannot The 

alone be sought in the repression of socialistic agitation ; •^"^P^^^'i 
1 1-1 11 • . 1 p Govern- 

there must be simultaneously the positive advancement or ^^^^^ under- 

the welfare of the working classes. And here the case of takes social 
those work-people who are incapable of earning their own ^^^o*^™- 
livelihood is of the greatest importance." Two years later 
(March 8, 1881) he said, "That the State should interest 
itself to a greater degree than hitherto in those of its mem- 
bers who need assistance, is not only a dut}' of humanity 
and Christianity — by which state institutions should be 
permeated — but a duty of state-preserving policy, whose 
aim should be to cultivate the conception — and that, too, 
among the non-propertied classes, which form at once the 
most numerous and the least instructed part of the popula- 
tion — that the State is not merely a necessary but a benev- 
olent institution. These classes must, by the evident and 
direct advantages which are secured to them by legislative 
measures, be led to regard the State, not as an institution con- 
trived for the protection of the better classes of society. 



316 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



Various 
forms of 
insurance 
proposed. 



State 
Socialism. 



The 

measures 

carried. 



but as one serving their own needs and interests." ^ Bis- 
marck said in 1884 : " The whole matter centers in the ques- 
tion: Is it the duty of the state, or is it not, to provide 
for its helpless citizens .f* I maintain that it is its duty, that 
it is the duty not only of the Christian state . . . but 
of every state." ^ 

The method by which Bismarck proposed to improve the 
condition of the working class was by an elaborate and 
comprehensive system of insurance against the misfortunes 
and vicissitudes of life, against sickness, accident, old age 
and incapacity. It was his desire that any workingman 
incapacitated in any of these ways should not be exposed 
to the possibility of becoming a pauper, but should receive 
a pension from the state. His policy was called State 
Socialism. " Give the workingman the right to employment 
as long as he has health," he told the Reichstag, " assure 
him care when he is sick, and maintenance when he is old. 
If you will do that without fearing the sacrifice, or crying 
out ' State Socialism ' as soon as the words ' provision for old 
age ' are uttered . . . then I believe these gentlemen 
(the Socialists) will sound their bird call in vain; and as 
soon as the workingmen see that the Government is deeply 
interested in their welfare, the flocking to them will cease." 

Bismarck's proposals met with vehement opposition, both in 
the Reichstag and among influential classes outside. It was 
only slowly that he carried them through, the Sickness In- 
surance Law in 1883, the Accident Insurance Laws in 1884 
and 1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law in 1889. These 
laws are very complicated and cannot be described here at 
length. 

Bismarck wished to have the state bear the entire expense. 
He did not wish to have it come as an additional burden 
to the working people. But he was not able to secure the 
consent of the Reichstag, which gave as reasons for its op- 



^ Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism, 111. 
''Ibid., 118. 



STATE INSURANCE 317 

position the enormous amount of money required, the great 
centralization of power in the hands of the Government which 
would arise from a system requiring so many officials and 
handling such large sums, and the weakening of the sense of 
self-reliance and personal responsibility with the workingmen. 

As finally enacted in the case of accident insurance the 
employers bear the burden alone. The employer is obliged 
by law to insure his employees, entirely at his own expense. 
In the case of sickness insurance, as a rule, the employer 
must pay one-third and the employee two-thirds of the 
premium, and in the case of the old age and incapacity 
insurance, the premiums are paid by the employers, the 
employees, and to some extent, by the state. 

Such was Bismarck's contribution to the solution of the Bismarck 
social question, which grew to such commanding importance ^ Pio^eer. 
as the nineteenth century wore on. In this legislation Bis- 
marck was a pioneer. His ideas have been studied widely 
in other countries, and his example followed in some. Daw- 
son calls him " the first social reformer of the century." 
Bismarck, once charged with changing his opinions to meet 
the occasion, replied that he had frequently changed liis 
opinions. " But I have been faithful to this : the unification 
of Germany under the leadership of Prussia. Everything 
else is accessory." That this system of state insurance, by 
relieving the mental and physical distress of millions of 
German laborers would strengthen the Empire, as well as 
benefit humanity, was, in his opinion, an additional reason 
for its adoption. 

The Socialists did not co-operate with him in the passage Not sup- 
of these laws, which they denounced as entirely inadequate P**^*^^ ^y 
to solve the social evils, as only a slight step in the right socialists 
direction. Nor did Bismarck wish their support. They 
were Social Democrats. Democracy he hated. Socialism 
of the state, controlled by a powerful monarch, was one 
thing. Socialism carried through by the people believing 
in a democratic government, opposed to the existing order 



318 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

in government and society, a very different thing. At the 
very moment that Bismarck secured the passage of the 
Accident Insurance Bill he also demanded the renewal of the 
law against the Socialists. His prophecy, that if these laws 
were passed the Socialists would sound their bird call in vain, 
has not been fulfilled. That party has grown greatly and 
almost uninterruptedly ever since he began his war upon it. 

ACQUISITION OF COLONIES 

■'■^® One of the important features of the closing years of 

l}6Gri]iniii&^ 

of a colonial Bismarck's political career was the beginning of a German 

empire. colonial empire. In his earlier years Bismarck did not be- 

lieve in Germany's attempting the acquisition of colonies. 
In 1871 he refused to demand as prize of war any of the 
French colonial possessions. He believed that Germany 
should consolidate, and should not risk incurring the hos- 
tility of other nations by entering upon the path of colonial 
rivalry. But colonies, nevertheless, were being founded under 
the spirit of private initiative. Energetic merchants from 
Hamburg and Bremen established trading stations in Africa, 
and the islands of the Pacific, for the purpose of selling their 
goods and acquiring tropical products, such as cocoa, coffee, 
rubber, spices. The aid of the Government was invoked 
at various times, but Bismarck held aloof. The interest 
aroused in the exploits of these private companies gave rise 
towards 1880 to a definite colonial party and the forma- 
tion of a Colonial Society, which has since become 
important. 

A result of The change in the policy of the Government, however, 
from one of aloofness to one of energetic participation and 

policy of acquisition of colonies was largely a result of the adoption 

protection, of the policy of protection and active governmental en- 
couragement of manufactures and commerce. In the debate 
on the tariff' bill of 1879 Bismarck said that it was desirable 
to protect manufactures, that thus a greater demand for 
labor would arise, that more people could live in Germany, 



ACQUISITION OF COLONIES 319 

and that therefore the emigration which had for years 
drawn tens of thousands from the country, particularly to 
the United States, would be decreased. But to develop 
manufactures to the utmost, Germany must have new markets 
for her products ; and here colonies would be useful. In 
188-i he adopted a vigorous colonial policy, supporting and 
expanding the work of the private merchants and travelers. 
In that year Germany seized a number of points in Africa, in Energetic 
the southwest, the west, and the east. A period of diplo- ^^ eryen- 
matic activity began, leading in the next few years to Africa, 
treaties with England and other powers, resulting in the 
fixing of the boundaries of the various claimants to African 
territory. This is the partition of Africa described else- 
where.' Germany thus acquired a scattered African em- 
pire of great size, consisting of Kamerun, Togoland, The 

German Southwest Africa, German East Africa ; also a part "^^"^^^ 

colonies, 
of New Guinea. Later some of the Samoan islands came 

into her possession, and in 1899 she purchased the Caroline 

and the Ladrone islands, excepting Guam, from Spain for 

about four million dollars. 

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 

While domestic affairs formed the chief concern of Bis- 
marck after the war with France, yet he followed the course 
of foreign affairs with the same closeness of attention that 
he had shown before, and manipulated them with the same 
display of subtlety and audacity that had characterized 
his previous diplomatic career. His great achievement in 
diplomacy in these years was the formation of the Triple The Triple 
Alliance, an achievement directed, like all the actions of 
his career, toward the consolidation and exaltation of his 
country. The origin of this alliance is really to be found 
in the Treaty of Frankfort, which sealed the humiliation 
of France. The wresting from France of Alsace and Lor- 
raine inevitably rendered that country desirous of a war of 
See Chapter XXIII. 



320 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

revenge, of a war for their recovery. This has remained the 
open sore of Europe since 1871. Firmly resolved to keep 
what he had won, Bismarck's chief consideration was to 
render such a war hopeless, therefore, perhaps, impossible. 
Isolation of France must be isolated so completely that she would not 
ranee. ^^^^^ ^^ move. This was accomplished, first by the friendly 

understanding brought about by Bismarck between the three 
rulers of eastern Europe, the Emperors of Germany, Russia, 
and Austria. But this understanding was shattered by 
events in the Balkan peninsula during the years from 1876 
to 1878. In the Balkans, Russia and Austria were rivals, 
and their rivalry was thrown into high relief at the Congress 
of Berlin. Russia, unaided, had carried on a war with 
Turkey, and had imposed the Treaty of San Stefano upon 
her conquered enemy, only to find that Europe would not 
recognize that treaty, but insisted upon its revision at 
an international congress, and at that congress she found 
Bismarck, to whom she had rendered inestimable services 
in the years so critical for Prussia, from 1863 to 1870, now 
acting as the friend of Austria, a power which had taken 
no part in the conflict, but was now intent upon drawing 
chestnuts from the fire with the aid of the Iron Chancellor. 
The Treaty of Berlin was a humiliation for Russia and a 
striking success for Austria, her rival, which was now em- 
powered to " occupy " Bosnia and Herzegovina. No wonder 
that the Russian Chancellor, Gortchakoff, pronounced the 
Congress of Berlin " the darkest episode in his career," 
and that Alexander II declared that " Bismarck had for- 
gotten his promises of 1870." By favoring one of his 
allies Bismarck had alienated the other. In this fact 
lay the germ of the two great international combina- 
tions of the future, the Triple and Dual Alliances, 
factors of profound significance in the recent history 
of Europe. 

Of these the first in order of creation and in importance 
was the Triple Alliance. Realizing that Russia was mor- 



THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 321 

tally offended at his conduct, and that the friendly under- 
standing with her was over, Bismarck turned for compensa- 
tion to a closer union with Austria, and concluded a treaty Austro- 
with her October 7, 1879. This treaty provided that if « 

either Germany or Austria were attacked by Russia the 1879. 
two should be bound " to lend each other reciprocal aid 
with the whole of their military power, and, subsequently, 
to conclude no peace except conjointly and in agreement"; 
that if either Germany or Austria should be attacked by 
another power — as, for instance, France — the ally should 
remain neutral, but that if this enemy should be aided by 
Russia, then Germany and Austria should act together with 
their full military force, and should make peace in common. 
Thus this Austro-German Treaty of 1879 established a 
defensive alliance aimed particularly against Russia, to a 
lesser degree against France. The treaty was secret and 
was not published until 1887. Meanwhile, in 1882, Italy Entrance 

joined the alliance, irritated at France because of her seizure ? ^ ^^^ 
" ^ . . into the 

the year before of Tunis, which Italy herself coveted as a alliance. 

seat for colonial expansion. Thus was formed the Triple 
Alliance. The text of that alliance has never been pub- 
lished, but its purpose and character may be derived from 
that of the Austro-German alliance, which was now merely 
expanded to include another power. The alliance was 
made for a period of years, but has been constantly re- 
newed and is still in force. It is a defensive alliance, de- 
signed to assure its territory to each of the contracting 
parties. 

Thus was created a combination of powers which dom- 
inated central Europe, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, 
and which rested on a military force of over two million 
men. At its head stood Germany. Europe entered upon a 
period of German leadership in international affairs which 
was later to be challenged by the rise of a new alliance, 
that of Russia and France, which for various reasons, how- 
ever, was slow in formine*. 



322 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

THE REIGN OF WILLIAM II 

Death of On the 9th of March, 1888, Emperor William I died at 

1 lam . ^YiQ age of ninety-one. He was succeeded by his son, Fred- 
erick IH, in his fifty-seventh year. The new Emperor was 
a man of moderation, of liberalism in politics, an admirer 
of the English constitution. It is supposed that, had he 
lived, the autocracy of the ruler would have given way to 
a genuine parliamentary system like that of England, and 
that an era of greater liberty would have been inaugurated. 
But he was already a dying man, ill of cancer of the throat. 
His reign was one of physical agony patiently borne. Un- 
able to use his voice, he could only indicate his wishes by 
writing or by signs. The reign was soon over, before the 
^era of liberalism had time to dawn. Frederick was King 
and Emperor only from March 9 to June 15, 1888. 

Accession of He was succeeded by his son, William II, the present 
1 lam II. j;i^pgj.Qj.^ 'p}^g j^g^ ruler was twenty-nine years of age, a 
young man of very active mind, of fertile imagination, versa- 
tile, ambitious, self-confident, a man of unusual promise. 
His education had been thorough and intelligent. In poli- 
tics he was without experience. In his earliest utterances 
he showed his enthusiasm for the army and for religious 
orthodoxy. He held the doctrine of the divine origin of 
his power with medieval fervor, expressing it with frequency 
and in dramatic fashion. It was evident that a man of 
such a character would wish to govern, and not simply 
reign. He would not be willing long to efface himself be- 
hind the imposing figure of the great Chancellor. Bismarck 
had prophesied that the Emperor would be his own Chancellor, 
yet he did not have the wisdom to resign when the old 
Emperor died, and to depart with dignity. He clung to 
power. From the beginning friction developed between 
the two. They thought differently, felt differently. The 
fundamental question was, who should rule in Germany.? 
The struggle was for supremacy since there was no way 



RESIGNATION OF BISMARCK 323 

in which two persons so self-willed and autocratic could 

divide power. As Bismarck stayed on when he saw that 

his presence was no longer desired, the Emperor, not willing 

to be overshadowed by so commanding and illustrious a The 

minister, finally demanded his resignation in 1890. Thus resigna- 

in bitterness and humiliation ended the political career of _,. , 

^ Bismarck. 

a man who, according to Bismarck himself, had " cut a figure 
in the history of Germany and Prussia." He lived several 
years longer, dying in 1898 at the age of eighty-three, 
leaving as his epitaph, " A faithful servant of Emperor 
William I." Thus vanished from view a man who will rank 
in history as one of the few great founders of states. 

Since 1890 the personality of William II has been the 
decisive factor in the state. His Chancellors have been, 
in fact as well as in theory, his servants, carrying out th3 
master's wish. There have been four: Caprivi, 1890-1894; 
Hohenlohe, 1894-1900; von Billow, 1900-1909; and Beth- 
mann-Hollweg since July, 1909. 

The extreme political tension was at first somewhat re- ^^® Anti- 

Socinlisl" 

lieved by the removal of Bismarck from the scene. The _„ij„„ 
early measures under the new regime showed a liberal tend- abandoned 
ency. The Anti-Socialist laws, expiring in 1890, were not 
renewed. This had been one of the causes of friction be- 
tween the Emperor and the Chancellor. Bismarck wished 
them renewed, and their stringency increased. The Em- 
peror wished to try milder methods, hoping to undermine 
the Socialists completely by further measures of social and 
economic amelioration, to kill them with kindness. The 
repressive laws lapsing, the Socialists reorganized openly, 
and have conducted an aggressive campaign ever since. The 
Emperor, soon recognizing the futility of anodynes, became 
their bitter enemy, and began to denounce them vehemently, 
but no new legislation has been passed against them, although 
several times attempted. 

In commercial matters William II, without abandoning 
the policy of protection, has made many reciprocity treaties 



324 



THE GERMAN EMPIRE 



Remarkable 
expansion 
of German 
industry. 



Germany 
a naval 
power. 



Continued 
growth of 
Socialism. 



with other nations, aiming to gain larger markets for the 
products of German manufacture, and his reign has been 
notable for the remarkable expansion of industry and 
commerce, which has rendered Germany the redoubtable 
rival of England and the United States. In colonial and 
foreign affairs an aggressive policy has been followed. Ger- 
man colonies as yet have little Importance, have entailed 
great expense and have yielded only small returns. But the 
desire for a great colonial empire has become a settled policy 
of the Government, and has seized the popular imagination, 
as was shown in the last elections, those of 1907. In that 
year the Socialists having opposed the policy of the Gov- 
ernment in Southwest Africa, the Reichstag was dissolved, 
with the result that, for the first time in many years, they 
lost greatly in the number of representatives elected by them 
to the Reichstag. Their numbers fell from eighty-one to 
forty-three, but their popular vote was larger than ever by 
about a quarter of a million. 

Connected with the growing Interest of Germany In com- 
mercial and colonial affairs has gone an increasing interest 
in the navy. Strong on land for fifty years, William II 
desires that Germany shall be strong on the sea, that she 
may act with decision In any part of the world, that her 
diplomacy, which is permeated with the idea that nothing 
great shall be done In world politics anywhere, in Europe, 
in Asia, in Africa, without her consent, may be supported 
by a formidable navy. To make that fleet powerful has 
been a constant and Is a growing preoccupation of the 
present sovereign. 

In the political world the rise of the Social Democratic 
party Is the most important phenomenon. It represents 
not merely a desire for a revolution in the economic sphere, 
it also represents a protest against the autocratic govern- 
ment of the present ruler, a demand for radically democratic 
institutions. While Germany has a Constitution and a 
Parliament, the monarch is vested with vast power. 



THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY 325 

Parliament does not control the Government, as the 

ministers are not responsible to it. There is freedom 

of speech in Parliament, but practically during most of 

this reign it has not existed outside. Hundreds of men have, 

during the past twenty years, been imprisoned for such 

criticisms of the Government as in other countries are the 

current coin of discussion. This is the crime of Use-ma jeste, 

which, as long as it exists, prevents a free political life. The 

growth of the Social Democratic party to some extent rep- The Social 

resents mere liberalism, not adherence to the economic theory ^^"locratic 

party 
of the Socialists. It is the great reform and opposition numerically 

party of Germany. It has the largest popular vote of any the largest, 
party, 3,250,000. Yet the Conservatives with less than 
1,500,000 votes elected in 1907 eighty-three members to the 
Reichstag to the forty-three of the Socialists. The reason 
is this. The electoral districts have not been altered since 
they were originally laid out in 1869-71, though population 
has vastly shifted from country to city. The cities have 
grown rapidly since then, and it is in industrial centers that 
the Socialists are strongest. Berlin with a population in 
1871 of 600,000, had six members in the Reichstag. 
It still has only that number, though Its population is over 
two million, and though it would be entitled to twenty mem- 
bers if equal electoral districts were granted. These the 
Socialists demand, a demand which, if granted, would make 
them the most powerful party in the Reichstag, as they are 
in the popular vote. For this very reason the Government 
has thus far refused the demand. The extreme opponents 
of the Social Democrats even urge that universal suffrage, 
guaranteed by the Constitution, be abolished, as the only 
way to crush the party. To this extreme the Government 
has not yet gone. 

At the present time several questions are important. One 
of these is the greatly increased taxation rendered necessary, 
owing largely to the elaborate and costly naval pro- 
gramme which has been adopted, and which includes 



326 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

the building annually, for several years to come, of four 

Dreadnoughts. 

^1^6 Three other questions are political: the question of the 

, , , electoral reform in Prussia; of the redistribution of seats, 
electoral . ''^ . 

reform. both in t^ ^ /"russian Landtag and the Imperial Reichstag; 

and of mmisterial responsibility. 

The Prussian electoral system is that of the three classes 
previously described.^ According to this a man's voting 
power is determined by the amount of his taxes. Voters 
are divided into three groups, according to taxes paid, and 
each group has an equal representation in the assemblies or 
colleges that choose the deputies to the lower house of the 
Prussian legislature. The first class contains from three to 
five per cent of the voters, the second from ten to twelve, 
whereas the third class contains perhaps eighty-five per cent, 
yet has only one-third of the members of the colleges. The 
result is, as has been said, representation in the Chamber of 
Deputies only for the rich and well-to-do. The working 
classes are almost entirely unrepresented. Because of this 
method of indirect elections, down to 1908 the Socialists were 
unable to elect a single member to the Prussian Chamber. 
With direct election they would have been entitled to about a 
hundred seats. 
The demand Again, the electoral districts for the Prussian Chamber 
for parlia- j^^^^ ^^^ i^^^^ changed since 1860. There are therefore great 
mentary ° • p r^ < 

reform. inequalities between them. Thus in the province of East 

Prussia the actual number of inhabitants to each deputy is 
63,000, while in Berlin it is 170,000. The demand is grow- 
ing that many districts be partially or wholly disfranchised 
or merged with others, and that other districts receive a 
larger representation. 

In the Empire a similar problem is yearly becoming more 
acute. In 1871 Germany was divided into 397 constituen- 
cies for the Reichstag. The number has remained the same 
ever since, nor has a single district gained or lost in represen- 

See pagCL 186. 



PRESENT PROBLEMS 827 

tation. Yet during that time the population of the Empire 
has increased from about fortj-one millions to over sixty 
millions, and there has been a great sh'^ting in popu- 
lation from the country to the cities. One v 'u., divisions 
of Berlin, with a population of 697,000, elec;^ one repre- 
sentative, whereas the petty principality of Waldeck, with 
a population of 59,000, elects one. The 851,000 voters 
of Greater Berlin return eight members ; the same number of 
voters in fifty of the smaller constituencies return forty-eight. 
A reform of these gross inequalities is widely demanded. 

Another subject which has recently received great em- The demand 
phasis is that concerning ministerial responsibihty. The ^°^ ministe- 

• T • /> T-^ TUCTMT TT 1 111* ^^^^ rCSpOll- 

andiscretions of Emperor William 11 have made this one s^ijjmy 
of the burning questions. An interview with him, in which 
he spoke with great freedom of the strained relations be- 
tween Germany and Great Britain, was published in the 
London Telegraph on October 28, 1908. At once was 
seen a phenomenon not witnessed in Germany since the 
founding of the Empire. There was a violent popular pro- 
test against the irresponsible actions of the Emperor, actions 
subject to no control, and yet easily capable of bringing 
about a war. Newspapers of all shades of party affiliation 
displayed a freedom of utterance and of censure unparal- 
leled in Germany. All parties in the Reichstag expressed 
their emphatic disapproval. The incident was not sufficient 
to bring about the introduction of the system of the responsi- 
bility of the ministers for all the acts of the monarch, and the 
control of the ministry by the majority of the Parliament — 
in short, the parliamentary system in its essential feature. 
But it will probably prove to have brought Germany con- 
siderably nearer to that system, through which the voters 
of a country have the supreme authority in the state. 

The great industrial expansion of Germany has created 
a numerous and wealthy bourgeoisie and an immense labor 
class. In other countries the advent of the bourgeoisie 
has been followed by liberal and democratic reforms, as in 



3^8 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 

France at the close of the eighteenth century. This class 
is now strong In Germany. An autocratic government may 
favor its development, in which case it will be submissive ; 
but if by Indiscreet or wilful acts the monarch threatens the 
material welfare of a class powerful by reason of its wealth 
and intelligence, the Instinct of that class has been to seek 
to curb the power of the individual, to seize control of 
the state. And one of its strongest weapons has hitherto 
been an appeal to the sovereignty of the people. Whether 
such a turn in the evolution of Germany Is Impending only 
The present h^q future can show. It Is enough here merely to indicate 
what appears to be the most significant feature of the 
present situation. Whether the people will gain in power, 
as they have gained in other countries, or lose even the portion 
they now have, remains to be seen. At present they count 
for less politically In Germany than in the other countries 
of western Europe. 



CHAPTER XV 

FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC ^^ J ^ 

"^ J' 
We have seen that the Republic was proclaimed by the 

Parisians September 4, 1870, as a result of the defeats of the 
Empire in the Franco-German war, culminating at Sedan. 
Immediately a Provisional Government of National De- 
fense assumed control. In all this there was no appeal to the 
people of France, no ratification by them. This Govern- 
ment gave way in February 1871 to a National Assembly 
of 750 members, elected by universal suffrage for the pur- 
pose of making peace with Germany. It was felt that 
the Provisional Government, not popularly chosen, but the 
creation of a Parisian insurrection, was not competent to 
settle so grave a matter. Involving, as it necessarily would, 
the cession of territory to the Germans. This National The 

Assembly, which first met at Bordeaux, showed a majority of ^^.tional 

, , Assembly. 
Monarchists. ^The reason was that as Gambetta and the 

leading Republicans wished to continue the war, and as the 
mass of peasants wished peace, the latter voted for the oppo- 
nents of Gambetta, wjio were chiefly Monarchists. There is 
no evidence to show that in doing this the peasants were ex- 
pressing an opinion against the Republic as a form of gov- 
ernment and in favor of a Monarchy. They wished the war 
stopped, and took the most obvious means to that end. The 
Assembly of Bordeaux made the peace, ceding Alsace and 
Lorraine, and assuming the enormous war indemnity. But 
peace did not return to France as a result of the Treaty 
of Frankfort. The " Terrible Year," as the French call 
it, of 1870-71 had more horrors In store. Civil war fol- 
lowed the war with the foreigners, shorter, but exceeding 
it in ferocity, a war between the city of Paris and the 
Government of France, represented by the Assembly of Bor- 

329 



330 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

deaux. That Assembly had, as we have seen, chosen Thiers 
as " chief of the executive power," pending " the nation's 
decision as to the definitive form of government." Thus 
the fundamental question was postponed. Thiers was 
chosen for no definite term; he was the servant of the As- 
sembly to carry out its wishes, and might be dismissed by 
it at any moment. 



Paris 
and the 
Assembly 
mutually 
suspicious. 



Versailles 
declared 
the capital. 



THE COMMUNE 

Between the Government and the people of Paris serious 
disagreements immediately arose, which led quickly to the 
war of the Commune. Paris had proclaimed the Republic. 
But the Republic was not yet sanctioned by France, and 
existed only de facto. On the other hand, the National 
Assembly was controlled by Monarchists, and it had post- 
poned the determination of the permanent institutions of 
the country. Did not this simply mean that it would abolish 
the Republic and proclaim the Monarchy, when it should 
judge the moment propitious.? This fear, only too well 
justified, that the Assembly was hostile to the Republic, 
was the fundamental cause of the Commune, Paris lived 
in daily dread of this event^ Paris was ardently Republicaa* 
For ten years under the Empire it had been returning Re- 
publicans to the Chamber ofADeputies. These men did not 
propose to let a coup d'etat like that of Louis Napoleon in 
1851 occur again^ Various acts of the Assembly were well 
adapted to deepen and intensify the feeling of dread un- 
certainty. The Assembly showed its distrust of Paris by 
voting in March 1871 that it would henceforth sit in Ver- 
sailles. In other words, a small and sleepy town, and one 
associated with the history of Monarchy, was to be the 
capital of France instead of the great city which had sus- 
tained the tremendous siege and by her self-sacrifice and 
suffering had done her best to hold high the honor of the 
land. Not only was Paris wounded in her pride by this 
act which showed such unmistakable suspicion of her, but 



PREVALENT ECONOMIC DISTRESS 331 

she suffered also in her material interests at a time of great 
financial distress. Property-owners, merchants, workmen 
were affected by this decision, which really removed the 
capital from Paris. The prosperity of Paris, sadly under- 
mined by the ^war with the Germans, now received an 
additional blow from the Government of France. 

Other highly imprudent acts of the Assembly tended in 
the same direction. The payment of rents, debts, notes 
falling due, had been suspended during the siege. The 
Parisians wished this suspension prolonged until business 
should revive. The Assembly refused to grant this, but 
ordered the payment of all such debts to be made within 
forty-eight hours. The result was that within four days 
150,000 Parisians found themselves exposed to legal prosecu- 
tion because of inability to pay their debts. This meant im- 
mense hardship to the business world. 

Again, the majority of workingmen still without employ- Distress 

ment had as their only means of support their pay as °^ *^^ 

•;_, ,rm- 3 "working 

members of the National Guard. This was now suppressed Masses. 

by the Assembly, except for those supplied with certificates 
of poverty. The economic misery of large numbers was 
thus increased at the very time they needed relief, after 
the harrowing siege. The National Guard included most 
of the able-bodied male population of the city. It had 
defended the city during the siege, and its arms were left 
in its hands after the peace. As soon as the siege was raised 
the rich and well-to-do members of the Guard Jteft Paris 
in large numbers, perhaps 150,000 of them, to rejoin their 
families in the provinces and abroad. The poor remained, 
perforce, without work, and now in most instances deprived 
of their franc and a half a day — an immense mass of dis- 
contented men, wretched, suspicious, armed, and inflamed 
by every rumor that the Republic was in danger. 

There was also in Paris a considerable population having Bevolu- 
diverse revolutionary tendencies — Anarchists, Jacobins, So- ^ 

cialists. The last party had grown under the reign of Na- 



SS2 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The idea 
of the 
commune. 



The 

National 
Guard. 



poleon III, and had a large following among the working 
classes. Among the restless, discontented, poverty-stricken 
masses of the great city their leaders worked with success. 
There arose out of the confusion of the time the idea of the 
commune, or the individual unit of the natiouj the city, or the 
village. It was held that in the future government of France 
emphasis should be given to the commune, that it should be 
vested with large powers to exercise as it saw fit, that the role 
of the state as a whole should be circumscribed. Looked 
at in one light this was the old idea that France was too 
highly centralized, local government too limited, too much 
controlled by the state. Let France be decentralized, was 
the cry. Each commune should be largely independent, 
uncontrolled in most matters by the central government. 
Such a scheme had this connection with the situation of 
the hour: it would free the cities, most of which were re- 
publican, in great measure from the control of the central 
government, which in the Assembly was monarchical. It 
would also be of advantage to the Socialists, who aspired to 
invest the commune with extensive powers in order that they 
might be used to bring about in each unit an economic and 
social revolution. Thus the radical Republicans, suspicious 
of the Assembly and prone to believe that the Republic was in 
danger, and a revolutionary party influenced by Socialists 
and inciting the people of the crowded workingmen's quar- 
ters to revolt, both emphasized the importance of the 
commune^ 

It was through the National Guard that this confused 
discontent gained expression. The Guard chose in February 
1871 a committee of sixty to direct it, and to prevent any 
action against Paris and against the Republic on the part of 
the National Assembly. It removed some cannon to one 
of the strongest points in the city. The Government, 
believing an insurrection likely, and not willing to strengthen 
it by leaving the cannon in the hands of the disaffected, 
endeavored to seize them on March 18, 1871, but failed. 



THE COMMUNE OF PARIS 833 

The National Guard protected them ; popular defiance of 
the Government had begun. The insurrectionary spirit 
spread with great rapidity throughout Paris until it devel- 
oped into a war between Paris and the Versailles Government. 
Two of the generals of the latter were seized and shot by the 
insurgents. The Government forces were withdrawn from 
Paris by Thiers, and the city was left entirely in the hands 
of the insurgents. 

This action of the national government left a free field The 

for the insurgents in the city. The more radical element 8'overnmen 

=• "^ . . , of the 

now secured complete control. An election was held in Paris commune. 

on March 26th of a General Council of 90 members to serve 
as the government of the commune. This government, com- 
monly called the Commune, organized itself by appointing 
ministers or heads of various departments. It adopted the 
republican calendar of the Revolution, and the red flag of 
the Socialists. This government consisted of revolutionists, 
but the revolutionists differed widely and bitterly from each 
other, and in these divisions lay their weakness and the cause 
of their ultimate overthrow. The ideal of the new govern- 
ment, as announced to the people, was the decentralization 
of France. The central government should simply consist 
of delegates from the communes. France was to be a kind 
of federation of these local units. The Communists vehe- 
mently denounced as a slander that they were seeking to 
destroy the unity of France, as worked out by the French 
Revolution : they were simply trying to abolish the kind of 
unity " imposed on us up 1» this day by the Empire, the 
Monarchy, and Parliamentarism," which had been but " des- 
potic, unintelligent, arbitrary, and onerous centralization." 
They wished by the new and free and spontaneous unity of 
the communes, co-operating voluntarily, to abolish the old 
system of " militarism, officiajfsm, exploitation, stockjobbing, 
monopolies, and privileges to which the proletariat owes its 
servitude, and the fatherland its misfortunes and its dis- 
asters." They appealed to France to join them. " Let her 



834j FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The 

Commune 
and the 
National 
Assembly 
clash. 



The 
second 
siege of 
Paris. 



be our ally in this conflict, which can only end by the triumph 
of the communal idea or the ruin of Paris ! " ^ 

This government and this ideal did not succeed, as success 
depended on defeating the Versailles Government. Troops 
were sent out from Paris to break up the National Assembly 
in Versailles, but they failed, their leaders were seized and 
shot on the spot. The Commune in revenge ordered the 
arrest of many prominent men in Paris, who were to be 
kept as " hostages." 

To Thiers and the National Assembly the whole affair 
was infamous. It imperiled the very existence of France. 
It was a bold and unscrupulous attempt of a single city to 
defy all France, the more infamous as foreign troops were 
still in control of the country. For Frenchmen to defy 
the Government of France, to begin civil war in the pres- 
ence of the victorious Germans, was bitterly humiliating 
to the nation before all the world. Some attempts at 
bringing about a reconciliation were made, but failed. 
Thiers, to disarm the cry that the Republic was in danger, 
denied that the Government was preparing to destroy 
the Republic, flatly contradicted the Communist leaders — 
" they are lying to France " — and announced that if any 
such conspiracy existed anywhere he would not lend him- 
self to its execution, and a law was passed, April 14th, 
enlarging the powers of local governing bodies. But he 
was emphatic that the unity of France must be preserved, 
and it was clear that the only way to do this was to put 
down the insurgents of Paris# This was for some time 
impossible, as the Assembly had few troops, and those were de- 
moralized. But with the return of soldiers from Switzer- 
land and from Germany, an army of 150,000 men was gotten 
together. With this army a regular siege of Paris was be- 
gun, this time by Frenchman^ Germans who controlled the 
forts to the north of Paris looking on, the second siege of the 
unhappy city within a year. Thus civil war succeeded for- 

^ Anderson, Constitutions and Documents, No. 126. 



THE OVERTHROW OF THE COMMUNE 335 

eign war, surpassing it in bitterness and ferocity. It 
lasted nearly two months, from April 2d to May 21st, when 
the Versailles troops forced their entrance into the city. Then 
followed seven days' ferocious fighting in the streets of 
Paris, the Communists more and more desperate and frenzied, 
the Versailles army more and more revengeful and sangui- 
nary. This was the " bloody week," during which Paris The 

suffered much more than she had from the bombardment of °°^ 

week " 
the Germans — a week of fearful destruction of life and 

property. The horrors of incendiarism were added to those 
of slaughter. " Everything," says Hanotaux, of May 23d, 
" was burning ; there were explosions everywhere. A night 
of terror. The Porte Saint-Martin, the church of Saint- 
Eustache, the Rue Royale, the Rue de Rivoli, the Tuileries, 
the Palais-Royal, the Hotel de Ville, the left bank from the 
Legion d'Honneur to the Palais de Justice, and the Police 
Office were immense red braziers, and above all rose lofty 
blazing columns. From outside, all the forts were firing 
upon Paris. . . . The gunners were cannonading one 
another across the town, and above the town. Shells fell 
in every direction^ All the central quarters were a battle- 
field. It was a horrible* chaos: bodies and souls in col- 
lision over a crumbling world." ^ The Communists shot 
their hostages. Fina/ly the agony was brought to a close. 
On May 28th the last insurgents were shot down in the 
cemetery of Pere-Lachaise. 

The revenge taken by the Government possessed no quality The Gov- 
of mercy. Racked by the horror of the week, infuriated by ernment's 
the belief that the Communists, seeing their defeat approach- 
ing, had made a deliberate attempt to destroy the city, horror- 
stricken at the murder of the hostages, of whom one was 
the Archbishop of Paris, it punished right and left summarily. 
Many were shot on the spot. " The number of men," says 
Hanotaux, " who perished in this horrible fray, without any 
other form of law, is estimated at 17,000. The cemeteries, 

* Hanotaux, Contemporary 'France. I, 215. 



336 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

the squares, private or public gardens, saw trenches opened 
in which nameless corpses were deposited without register 
and without list, by thousands." ^ Arrests and trials went 
on for years. Up to 1875 over 43,000 had been arrested, 
over 350,000 denounced. The prisoners were judged by 
courts-martial. Nearly ten thousand were condemned sum- 
marily to various punishments, thousands being deported to 
New Caledonia. It was not until 1879 that an amnesty was 
passed for the remaining prisoners, and then only owing to 
the impassioned plea of Gambetta for pity. The result of 
all this was the deep embitterment of classes against each 
other. The revolutionary party, crushed and silenced, nour- 
ished its hatred of the bourgeoisie, who returned its hatred. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THIERS 

France at Having put down the insurrection of Paris and signed 

peace. ^-^^ j^^^,^ treaty with Germany, France was ^t peace. She 

had between July 1870 and June 1871 received such stag- 
gering blows that she had sunk rapidly from the position 
of the first power on the Continent to the rank of fourth 
or fifth. Immense destruction of nation^ wealth and na- 
tional prestige had characterized the Terrible Year. Time 
was needed for reorganization. France, overwhelmingly 
crushed, must be built up anew. This work of reconstnic- 
The tion was immediately undertaken by the Government of 

government Thiers. That Government lasted over two years, and its 
of Thiers, achievements were notable. Thiers had been chosen by 
the Assembly of Bordeaux " chief of the executive." The 
Assembly was the only authority in France for several 
years. It had been elected February 8, 1871, but no 
definite powers had been vested in it, nor had the length of 
its term been fixed. Would this Assembly, which had been 
elected to decide the question of peace and war, consider 
itself competent to sit longer, to determine the future gov- 
ernment of France, and if so, to decide that the government 
^ Hanotaux, Ibid., 225. 



THE RIVET LAW 337 

should be a Monarchy, and not the Republic proclaimed by 
the crowd of Paris on September 4th? These were vital 
questions, which were, however, but slowly answered. The 
Assembly remained in power for nearly five years, from 
February 1871 to December 31, 1875, refusing to dissolve. 

On August 31, 1871, it passed the important Rivet law, The 
by which it accepted provisionally the existing government, ^^^^'' ^*^* 
declared that the chief of the executive should take the 
title of President of the French Republic, and that he should 
be responsible to the Assembly. The law also proclaimed 
that the Assembly possessed constituent powers, and was 
under the obligation to exercise them at the proper time. 
No definite term was established for the presidency. It 
was to last, so the Rivet law itself stated, as long as the 
Assembly lasted. The government, therefore, was one 
strictly by parliament. All sovereignty was declared vested 
in the Assembly. Thiers was really simply leader of the 
majority. As soon as he lost his majority he stepped 
down and out (1873). 

But before that time came he accomplished an extraor- 
dinary work. .Urging the parties to drop their merely 
partisan interests for the time being, he appealed to their 
patriotism, which was not lacking. France must be re- 
organized, the wounds of the past year healed. After that, 
let the question of the final form of government be brought 
forward. 

The financial burdens created by the war, the Commune, ^^® ^°^* 
and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, were found, on examination, <, Terrible 
to amount to over fifteen billion francs, or about three bil- Year." 
lion dollars. The loss in life was great. It is estimated 
that about 140,000 men were killed, and more than that 
number wounded; that about 340,000 entered hospitals for 
various diseases. France lost about 1,600,000 inhabitants 
by the cession of Alsace-Lorraine, and apart from that, her 
population suffered a loss of about a half a million. 

The most imperative task confronting the Government 



338 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The 

liberation 
of the 
territory. 



was to get the Germans out of the country. By the Treaty 
of Frankfort France was to pay within three years a war 
indemnity of five bilhon francs. Until this was accom- 
plished there was to be a German army of occupation in 
France, supported by France, and occupying a certain 
number of departments. This army was to be withdrawn 
gradually, as the instalments of the indemnity were paid. 
The army at first numbered about 500,000 men and 150,000 
horses. The cost of their support was heavy. 

Thiers wished to bring about evacuation with the utmost 
possible speed, in order to remove the humiliation of a vic- 
torious foreign soldiery in France, the possibility that their 
presence might at any moment provoke some incident which 
would lead to a new war, and also to save millions. Under 
his leadership the task of paying the Germans was under- 
taken with energy and carried out with celerity. The first 
five hundred million francs were paid in July 1871, and the 
German troops were withdrawn from Normandy. By the end 
of September 1871 1,500,000,000 had been paid, and troops 
had been withdrawn from all but twelve departments. By the 
end of 1871 the army of occupation numbered 150,000 men 
and 18,000 horses. Payments proceeded rapidly. In Sep- 
tember 1873 the final instalment was met, and the last Ger- 
man soldiers left France. Thus French soil was freed nearly 
six months earlier than was provided by the treaty. This 
rapid liquidation of the indemnity had been effected by two 
successful loans contracted by the Government, one in 1871 
for over 2,000,000,000 francs, the other in 1872 for nearly 
3,500,000,000 francs. The former was oversubscribed two 
and a half times ; the latter over fourteen times. This amaz- 
ing success bore striking evidence to the wealth of the country. 
For his great services in this initial work of the reconstruc- 
tion of France the National Assembly voted that Thiers 
had " deserved well of the country." That the country 
shared the sentiment was shown by its spontaneous bestowal 
of the grateful name, " The Liberator of the Territory." 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THIERS 339 

The two years of Thiers' presidency were notable for the 
energy and success of the work of rebuilding France. Two 
measures in particular merit description, the local govern- 
ment bill, and the bill whereby the army was reconstructed 
and put on a far larger and sounder basis than ever 
before. 

Local government was partially reorganized in the direc- Reform 

tion of decentralization. Some of the powers hitherto be- ^^ °°^ 

. T • 1 government, 

longing to the central government were now vested m the 

departmental and communal councils. Hitherto the prefect, 
head of the department, and appointed by the central gov- 
ernment, had had almost unlimited powers throughout his 
department. Ever since the Revolution various attempts 
had been made to reduce this excessive concentration of power 
in the hands of the officials in Paris. The outbreak of the 
Commune had made this question acute. A law was passed 
in 1871 permitting all adult men of a year's residence in 
the commune to elect the communal council, and in the smaller 
communes permitting the council to choose the mayor. In all 
towns of over 20,000 inhabitants, and in the chief towns of 
departments or arrondissements, the mayors were still to be 
appointed by me central government. The measure was 
a compromise between Napoleonic centralization and the 
complete self-governmen| demanded by radical reformers. 
In only 460 communes would the mayors henceforth be 
appointed from Paris. 

The reconstruction of the army was also urgent. A Army 
law was passed in July 1872 which, in its essential features, 
still remains the basis of the military system of France. 
The example of Prussia, so successful, was followed. Hence- 
forth there was to be universal compulsory military service. 
The National Guard was abolished. The new army, based 
on universal obligatory service, was to be divided into four 
parts, with various terms : five years in the active army, and 
different periods in the various reserves. Certain special 
classes were to be required to give only one year's service, 



340 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The 

question 
of the 
permanent 
form of 
government 



Thiers 
and the 
Republic. 



as for instance, young men who showed certain certificates 
of advanced education. These must, however, pay to the 
state the amount of 1500 francs. Other classes were ex- 
empted entirely from service — ecclesiastics, teachers, and 
sons of widows, supposed to be supporters of families. 
The enactment of this law, with the principle of compulsory 
service for five years in the active army, was one of the 
most important acts of the early years of the Third Re- 
public. In the face of the threats from Germany, alarmed 
at this revival of French military power, France went 
steadily ahead with her projects of reorganization. Not 
only was a new and large army provided, but fortresses 
were built, equipment created, all burdensome, yet willingly 
borne. 

In regard to the subjects which grew out of the war, the 
terms of peace, and the necessary measures of reconstruction, 
the Assembly was able to work on the whole harmoniously. 
But now a question, which could no longer be postponed, 
and which was highly divisive in its nature, entered upon 
its acute phase — the question of the permanent form of 
government. The Repubhc existed de facto^ but not in law. 
It had been merely proclaimed by an insurrectionary body 
in Paris in September 1870* The Assembly^ which was 
elected in the following February^ and which represented 
all France, proved to be composed^ as" we have seen, in 
the majority^ of Monarchists* Would these Monarchists- 
consider that they were elected to make a constitution, 
not simply to determine the question of peace and war? 
If so, would they not simply declare the restoration of 
the Monarchy.? They did not at first attempt this, probably 
because they preferred that the odium of a peace relinquish- 
ing French territory should attach to the Republic, not to 
the restored Monarchy. But now that the peace was made, 
the territory freed, the necessary laws passed, the Monar- 
chists became active. They found they had in Thiers a 
man who would not abet them in their project. Thiers 



THIERS AND THE MONARCHISTS 341 

was originally a believer in constitutional monarchy, but 
he was not afraid of a republican government, and during 
the years after 1870 he came to believe that a Republic 
was, for France, at the close of a turbulent century, the 
only possible form of government, " There is," he said, 
" only one throne, and there are three claimants for a 
seat on it." He discovered a happy formula in favor of 
the Republic, " It is the form of government which divides 
us least." And again, " Those parties who want a mon- 
archy, do not want the same monarchy,^ By which phrases 
he accurately described a curious situation! The Monarch- The 
ists, while they constituted a majority of the Assembly, Monarchist 
were divided mto three parties, no one of which was in 
the majoritjv^ There were Legitimists, Orleanists, and 
Bonapartists. The Legitimists upheld the right of the 
grandson of Charles X, the Count of Chambord; the Or- 
leanists, the right of the grandson of Louis Philippe, the 
Count of Paris ; the Bonapartists, of Napoleon III, or his 
son. Tke Monarchist parties could unite to prevent a definite, 
explicit establishment of the Republic ; they could not unite 
to establish the monarchy, as each wing wished a different 
moixc^rch. Out of this division arose the only chance the 
Third Republic had to live. As the months went by, the 
Monarchists felt that Thiers was becoming constantly more 
of a Republican, which was true ; not a Republican of aflPec- 
*tion, but one of reason. He was, therefore, too dangerous 
a man to leave inf power, as he might, so great was the 
authority of his name and argument, persuade the former 
Monarchists to become Republicans. Indeed, it has been 
estimated that probably about a hundred members of the 
Assembly were influenced by him in that direction^ If a 
monarchical restoration was to be attempted, therefore, 
Thiers must be gotten out of the way. But he had thus far 
been indispensable. Now, however, that peace was made, . 
the finances regulated, the army reorganized, he was con- ^j^^ ^f 
sidered no longer necessary, and in 1873 was outvoted in Thiers. 



342 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

the Assembly, and resigned, and Marshal MacMahon was 
chosen president to prepare the way for the coming monarch. 

THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION 

Earnest attempts were made forthwith to bring about 

a restoration of the monarchy. This could be done by a 

fusion of the Legitimists and the Orleanists. Circumstances 

were particularly favorable for the accomplishment of such 

The a union. The Count of Chambord had no direct descendants. 

Count of rpj^g inheritance would, therefore, upon his death, pass to the 
Chambord. „ • . 

House of Orleans, represented by the Count of Paris. The 

elder branch would in the course of nature be succeeded by 
the younger. This fusion seemed accomplished when the 
Count of Paris visited the Count of Chambord, recogniz- 
ing him as head of the family. A committee of nine members 
of the Assembly, representing the Monarchist parties, the 
Imperialists holding aloof, negotiated during the summer of 
1873 with the " King " concerning the terms of restoration. 
The negotiations were successful on most points^ and it 
seemed as if by the close of the year the existence of the 
Republic would be terminated and Henry V would be reigning 
in France. The Republic was saved by the devotion of the 
Count of Chambord to a symbol. He stated that he would 
never renounce the ancient Bourbon banner^ " Henry V 
could never abandon the white flag of Henry IV," he had 
already declared, and from that resolution he never swerved. 
The tricolor represented the Revolution, If he was to be 
King of France it must be with his principles_^and his flag; 
King of the Revolution he would never consent to be. The 
Orleanists, on the other hand, adhered to the tricolor, knowing 
its popularity with the people, knowing that no regime that 
repudiated the glorious symbol could long endure. Against 
this barrier the attempted fusion of the two branches of 
the Bourbon family was shattered. The immediate danger to 
the Republic was over. 

But the Monarchists did not renounce their hope of re- 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SEPTENNATE 343 

storing the monarchy. The Count of Chambord might, per- 
haps, change his mind: if not, as he had no son, the Count 
of Paris would succeed him after his death as the lawful 
claimant to the throne ; and the Count of Paris, defender 
of the tricolor, could then be proclaimed. The Monarchists, 
therefore, planned merely to gain time. Marshal Mac- 
Mahon had been chosen executive, as had Thiers, for no 
definite term. He was to serve during the pleasure of 
the Assembly itself. Believing that MacMahon would re- 
sign as soon as the King really appeared, they voted that 
his term should be for seven years, expecting that a period Establish- 
of that length would see a clearing up of the situation, either "^^^* °' *"® 
the change of mind or the death of the Count of Chambord. 
Thus was established the Septennate, or seven year term, 
of the president, which still exists. The presidency was 
thus given a fixed term by the Monarchists, as they sup- 
posed, in their own interests. If they could not restore 
the monarchy in 1873, they could at least control the presi- 
dency for a considerable period, and thus prepare an easy 
transition to the new system at the opportune moment. 

But France showed unmistakably that she desired the 
establishment of a definitive system, that she wished to be 
through with these provisional arrangements, which only 
kept party feeling feverish and handicapped France in her 
foreign relations. France had as yet no constitution, and yet 
this Assembly, chosen to make peace, had asserted that it 
was also chosen to frame a constitution, and it was by 
this assertion that it justified its continuance in power long 
after peace was made. Yet month after month, and year Assembly- 
after year, went by and the constitution was not made, nor J^^luctant 
even seriously discussed. If the Assembly could not, or constitu- 
would not, make a constitution, it should relinquish its power tion. 
and let the people 'elect a body that would. But this it 
steadily refused to do. 

There was a dispute even as to what the form of govern- 
ment was at that moment. Was it a Republic or not.'' It 



344 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The 

Assembly 
active 
against 
Repub- 
licans. 



Growth 
of the 
Republican 
party. 



is true that the Assembly had elected a President of the 
Republic. It had thus inferentfally ratified the proclamation 
of the Parisians of September 4, 1870. But was this merely 
provisional .f" The Republic needed to be founded on funda- 
mental laws before it could really be considered established. 
But not only would the Assembly not frankly proclaim 
the Republic, even after the attempt to restore " Henry V " 
had failed, but, on the other hand, it endeavored to stamp out 
the Republican propaganda, which was steadily gaining 
ground among the people under the inspiring leadership of 
Gambetta. In order to increase its power in this contest with 
the Republicans, the Assembly altered the local government 
laws described above. By the law of 1873 the mayors of all 
the communes in France were to be appointed directly or 
indirectly by the ministry, and not elected by the local 
council, as by the law of 1871. This gave the ministry 
control of a number of office-holders in each town, who must 
do its bidding. Busts representing the Republic were re- 
moved from all public buildings ; the name Republic was 
ostentatiously omitted from public documents. Republican 
newspapers were prosecuted and harassed in many ways. 
In a year more than 200 of them were arbitrarily suppressed. 
Such conduct rendered the Republicans more united and 
resolute. Gambetta journeyed from town to town, winning 
over to the Republic by his remarkable eloquence and powers 
of argumentation " new social classes," now influential by 
reason of universal suff^rage, the lower ranks of the bour- 
geoisie, and the working class. The party grew steadily. 
Every day, therefore, the Assembly could less safely appeal 
to the people by a dissolution, yet with the rising tide of 
disaffection it must appeal to it or must set about giving 
the country permanent institutions, as a method of restoring 
quiet. Just at this time, when feeling ran so high, the 
Bonapartist party became aggressive, and won a number 
of successes at elections. The danger of a Bonapartist 
revival was one of the causes which prompted the Assembly 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OF 18T5 345 

finally to take up seriously the consideration of the con- 
stitution. Would not the people rush to the support of 
the Bonapartists when they saw that the Assembly could 
not establish the Monarchy, and would not establish the 
Republic? A number of Orleanist members preferred even 
a republic to another Napoleonic empire, and it was through 
their secession that the majority shifted in the Assembly to 
the Republicans. Only, they insisted on making the Re- 
public as conservative as possible, with as many of the at- 
tributes of monarchy as could be thrown about it^ As 
the Republicans needed the votes of these Orleanists in order 
to carry through their plans at all, they were forced to make 
liberal concessions in this directioi^^ 

Out of this confused and abnormal situation arose the The Con- 
laws known as the Constitution of 1875? a law on the Organ- stitution 

. . of 1875. 

ization of the Senate (February 24) | on the Organization of 

the Public Powers (February 25) ; and on the Relations of 
the Public Powers (July 16) ; and other organic laws passed 
later. At the beginning of the discussion it was found that 
the word " republic " was avoided in the texts. Proposed in 
the form of an amendment, it was voted down. Only later, 
and by indirection, was it adopted in speaking of the mode 
of election of " the President of the Republic." Even this 
phrase, the famous Wallon amendment, was adopted by a 
majority of only one vote, 353 to 352. Throughout the 
constitution it is only in connection with the presidential 
title that the word occurs. There is no formal but only this 
implicit statement that France is a republic. The difficult 
word was officially uttered by an Assembly that would have 
established monarchy if it could have.^ 

By the laws of 1875 a legislature consisting of two houses 
was established, a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The 
Senate was to consist of 300 members, at least forty years The 
of age. The Monarchists wished to have the members Senate. 

^ A constitutional amendment adopted in 1884 renders the matter ex- 
plicit: "The republican form of government shall not be made the sub- 
ject of a proposed revision." 



The 
President. 



346 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

appointed by the President. It was finally determined, how- 
ever, that one-fourth, or 75, should be elected for life by 
the Assembly itself, the remainder for a term of nine years. 
The Republicans wished to have these senators chosen by 
direct universal suffrage, but the Assembly wished to limit 
the sphere of universal suffrage as much as possible. It 
was finally decided that the senators of each department 
should be chosen by an electoral college. This electoral 
college should consist of various classes, the deputies from 
that Apartment, members of the general department coun- 
cil, members of the arrondissement or district councils, and, 
more important than all the others because more numerous, 
of one delegate from each commune of the department, chosen 
by the communal council. The Monarchists insisted on 
this arrangement a^ likely to give them control of the 
Senate. No distinction ^as made between communesu A large 
city and a small country village were each to send one delegate 
to the college which should choose the senator. As the repre- 
sentatives from the country communes or villages were the 
more numerous class, and as the Monarchistsi being large 
landed proprietors, had great influence in the rural districts, 
it was likely that the Senate could thus be controlled by them. 
One-third of the Senate was to be renewed every three years. 
There was also to be a Chamber of Deputies^ elected by 
universal suffrage for a four-year term^ The Senate and 
Chamber of Deputies, meeting together^ should constitute a 
National Assembly. Organized in this form they should have 
the power to elect the President and to revise the Constitu- 
tion. The President is chosen for seven years, and may be re- 
elected. There is no vice-president, no succession provided 
by law. In case of a vacancy in the presidency the Na- 
tional Assembly meets and elects a new President, generally 
within forty-eight hours. The President has the right to 
initiate legislation, as have the members of the two cham- 
bers, the duty to promulgate laws after their passage, to 
superintend their execution, the pardoning power, the direc- 



FRANCE A PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC 347 

tion of the army and navy, and the appointment to all civil 
and military positions. He may, with the consent of the 
Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the expira- 
tion cf its legal term and order a new election. But these 
powers are merely nominal, for the reason that every act of 
the President must be countersigned by a minister, who 
thereby becomes responsible for the act, the President being 
irresponsible, except in the case of high treason.^ 

The most fundamental feature of the French Republic, 
as established by the laws of 1875, is the parliamentary 
system, as worked out in England. " The ministers are 
jointly and severally responsible to the Chambers for the 
general policy of the government, and individually for their 
personal acts," says the law. The ministry, therefore, is The 
the real executive, and it is practically a committee of "^i^^istry. 
the Chambers, chosen to exercise the executive power under 
the nominal direction of the President. The ministry must 
resign as soon as it loses support of the Chambers. The 
Chambers, therefore, possess control of the executive, as 
of the legislative power. These powers, instead of being 
carefully separated, as in our constitution, are really fused, 
as in the English system. Parliament is the center and 
head of power. The President's position resembles that 
of the constitutional monarch ; one of ceremonial representa- 
tion of the state, without real power, other than that which 
may flow from his personality, his powers of suggestion 
or advice, which the ministers may listen to or not. The 
ministers are responsible to parliament, that is, practically 
to the Chamber of Deputies, as the popular chamber. It 
is the Chamber that really makes and unmakes ministries 
by its votes, that is, controls the executive branch of the 
government. The Chamber has proved able even to force 
the President to resign before the expiration of his seven- 

' These laws are given in Anderson, Constitutions and Documents, 
No. 133; also in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I, 286-294; in French in 
Lowell, Governments and Parties, II, 337-344. 



348 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



France a 
parlia- 
mentary 
republic. 



Dissolution 
of the 
National 
Assembly. 



year term by refusing to support any ministry, thus bring- 
ing all state action to a standstill. France has a con- 
stitution more democratic than that of England or the 
United States, in both of which countries the popularly 
elected chamber encounters serious checks. 

Not that this was apparent to the Assembly that created 
this system. Not for some years was it clear that the 
democratic element of this constitution was to be the vital 
part. The monarchical assembly that established the par- 
liamentary republic in 1875 thought that it had introduced 
sufficient monarchical elements into it to curb the aggres- 
siveness of democracy and to facilitate a restoration of the 
Monarchy at some convenient season. By reducing the 
presidency to a nominal position it aimed to prevent one- 
man power, the emergence of a Bonaparte, as in 1848 and 
1851. The Senate, it thought, would be a monarchical 
stronghold. And the President and Senate could probably 
keep the Chamber of Deputies in check by their power of 
dissolving it. The Republicans accepted this system as 
better than monarchy or the existing provisional scheme. 
It bore the name Republic, and they hoped to make it a 
Republic in more than name. Some Radical Republicans, 
however, denounced the Constitution as a mockery. 

The Constitution of 1875 was plainly a compromise be- 
tween opposing forces, neither of which could win an un- 
alloyed victory. It was as Hanotaux says, " a dose prepared 
for a convalescent country." 

Having completed the Constitutional Laws, the National 
Assembly which had been in session since February 1871, 
which had ratified the Treaty of Frankfort, had liberated 
the territory, and had reorganized the army and local gov- 
ernment, dissolved itself December 31, 1875. The elections 
to the Senate and Chamber of Deputies were held at the 
beginning of 1876. The Monarchists secured a slight ma- 
jority in the former, the Republicans a large majority in the 
latter. MacMahon at first appointed a ministry of Repub- 



THE REPUBLIC AND THE CHURCH 349 

licans, insisting, however, that three departments were outside 
politics, therefore not controllable by Parliament — the de- 
partments of War, Navy, and Foreign Affairs. 

The Monarchists now began a vigorous agitation against The 
the Republicans. They were powerfully supported by the ^?^ ^^ 
clerical party, which, ever since 1871, had been extremely church, 
active. The Republicans resented this intrusion of the 
Catholic party into politics, and their opinion was vividly 
expressed by Gambetta, who in the Chamber threw out a 
phrase which became famous — " Clericalism — that is our 
enemy," — meaning that the Roman Catholic Church was 
the most dangerous opponent of the Republic. These Anti- 
Republican groups persuaded President MacMahon that 
he was not bound to accept a ministry at the bidding of 
the Chambers, that he had the right to a personal policy, 
a programme of his own. As certain elections of the bodies 
which participated in the choice of senators were to be 
held toward the close of 1877. and as they would probably 
result in the Republicans capturing the Senate, if conducted 
by a Republican ministry, and as he believed that the 
triumph of the Republicans would be harmful to France, 
to the army, to foreign prestige, MacMahon virtually dis- 
missed, May 16, 1877, the Simon ministry, which had the 
support of the Chamber, and appointed a ministry, composed 
largely of Monarchists, under the Duke de Broglie. There- 
upon, the Senate, representing the same views, consented to 
the dissolution of the Chamber, and new elections were pre- 
pared. 

Thus a constitutional question was created — the relation MacMahon's 
of the Presidency to the Chamber of Deputies. If the Presi- conception 
dent was to resemble the British sovereign, he had no right presidency, 
to a personal policy of his own, no right to dismiss ministers 
acceptable to Parliament. MacMahon's opinion was that 
he had that right, and that " if the Chamber did not ap- 
prove, it remained for the people to decide between him 
and it " by a dissolution and new elections. 



350 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

This was a contest for political power between the Presi- 
dent and the Senate on the one hand, the Chamber on the 
other. As the Constitution gave the President and Senate 
the right to dissolve the Chamber, they had the upper hand, 
at least until the people voted. A crisis had arisen which 
involved an interpretation of the Constitution. The Presi- 
dent did not consider himself a mere figurehead, did not 
propose to consider the Chamber of Deputies as supreme. 

This question was now fought out before the people. A 
new Chamber of Deputies was to be chosen. The Broglie 
ministry used every effort to influence the voters against 
Gambetta and the Republicans. Republican office-holders 
were removed and reactionaries put in their place. The 
political machinery was used to hamper the Republicans, 
to silence or curb the Republican newspapers. Gambetta 
coined another famous phrase, when he declared that after 
the people should have spoken, MacMahon must " either 
submit or resign." For this he was prosecuted, and 
condemned to three months of prison and a fine of 2,000 
francs. Official candidates were put forth for the Chamber, 
supported by the ministry and office-holders. The clergy 
took an active part in the campaign, supporting the official 
candidates, and preaching against the Republicans, conduct 
which in tlie end was to cost them dear. The struggle was 
embittered. It was a contest between the monarchical and 
republican principles, with the clergy, then very influential, 
in favor of the former. The bishops ordered a supplication 
for a favorable vote. The supplication was apparently 
Victory of not heard. The Republicans were overwhelmingly victorious, 
the Repub- j^ ij^q ^q^ Chamber they had a majority of over a hundred. 
MacMahon " submitted," and took a Republican mmistry. 

In the next year, 1878, an election of one-third of the 
Senate occurred. The Republicans now gained control of 
that body. With both Chambers Republican, Marshal Mac- 
Mahon's position became very difficult. The Chambers de- 
manded the retirement from the army of certain generals. 



REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION 351 

who were opposed to the Repubhcans. MacMahon refused 

to remove them on the ground that this would be prejudicial 

to the army, which should be kept out of politics. Rather 

than acquiesce he resigned the Presidency, January 30, 1879. designation 

The National Assembly immediately met and elected Jules „ _, , 

•^ -^ ^ _ , MacMahon. 

Grevy president, a man whose devotion to Republican prin- 
ciples had been known to France for thirty years. For the 
first time since 1871 the Republicans controlled the Chamber 
of Deputies, the Senate, and the Presidency. Since that 
time the Republic has been entirely in the hands of the Re- 
publicans. 

REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION 

Jules Grevy had in 1848 advocated the suppression of Grevy 
the Presidency on the ground that one-man power was p • ^ ^ 
dangerous. He now administered the office in a manner 
sharply contrasting with that of MacMahon. He had no 
personal policy, he never personally intervened in the con- 
duct of affairs ; that was the province of the ministry. His 
example has been followed by succeeding presidents. Thus 
the Presidency has lost any suggestion of monarchy it may 
ever have had. In the war of politics the President is a 
neutral figure, affiliating with no party. 

The Republicans, now completely victorious, and no Republican 
longer merely on the defensive, shortly broke up into numer- legislation, 
ous groups. Ministries changed with great frequency, and 
it is not in the permutations and combinations of politicians 
that the main significance of the next period lies, but in 
the constructive work which aimed to consolidate the Re- 
public. Two personalities stand out with particular promi- 
nence: Gambetta, as president of the Chamber of Deputies, 
and Jules Ferry, as member of several ministries and as 
twice prime minister. The legislation enacted during this 
period aimed to clinch the victory over the Monarchists 
and Clericals by making the institutions of France thoroughly 
republican and secular. The seat of government was trans- 



S52 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



Creation 
of a 

national 
system of 
education. 



ferred from Versailles, where it had been since 1871, to 
Paris (1880), and July 14th, the day of the storming of 
the Bastille, symbol of the triumph of the people over the 
monarchy, was declared the national holiday, and was cele- 
brated for the first time in 1880 amid great enthusiasm. 
The right of citizens freely to hold public meetings as they 
might wish, and without any preliminary permission of 
the Government, was secured, as was also a practically 
unlimited freedom of the press (1881)^ Municipal councils 
were once more given the right to elect mayors (1882), and 
their administrative power was greatly augmented (1884). 
This was an enlargement of the sphere of local self-govern- 
ment, a great school of political training for the people. 
Workingmen were permitted, for the first time, freely to form 
trades unions (1884). Divorce, which Napoleon had in- 
troduced into the Code, but which was abolished in 1814, 
was restored in 1884. 

The Republicans were particularly solicitous about educa- 
tion. As universal suffrage was the basis of the state, it 
was considered fundamental that the voters should be in- 
telligent. Education was regarded as the strongest bulwark 
of the Republic. Several laws were passed, concerning all 
grades of education, but the most important were those 
concerning primary schools. A law of 1881 made primary 
education gratuitous ; one of 1882 made it compulsory be- 
between the ages of six and thirteen, and later laws made it 
entirely secular. No religious instruction is given in these 
schools. All teachers are appointed from the laity. This 
system of popular education is one of the great creative 
achievements of the Republic, and one of the most fruitful. 
It has increased the number of those in primary schools by 
850,000. Illiteracy has dropped from 25 per cent, to 4 
per cent, for the men, and from 38 per cent, to 7 per cent, for 
the women. To carry out this system immense expenditures 
have been necessary, to erect schoolhouses and to employ 
more teachers. Twenty-five thousand schoolhouses have 



LAWS CONCERNING EDUCATION 353 

been built, or rebuilt, at an expense of over 140 million 
dollars, and the appropriations for the maintenance, which 
falls upon the state, for primary education is an affair 
of the nation, not of the locality, has trebled. This legis- 
lation was enacted under the vigorous direction and in- 
spiration of the Minister of Public Instruction, Jules Ferry, 
and is one of his most enduring titles to fame. Laws were 
also passed concerning secondary, university, and technical 
education. The Government undertook in this legislation 
to free the schools from all clerical control, on the ground 
that the clergy were enemies of the Republic. Further 
evidences of this anti-clerical feeling are found in the ex- 
pulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1880, and in the re- 
fusal to all unauthorized religious orders of the right to 
maintain schools. Schools might, howevefr, be maintained 
by the secular clergy and by those orders which should receive 
the sanction of the Government. 

The Republic also entered upon a policy of large ex- Public 
penditures for public works, such as the building of rail- ^*'^^^* 
ways, canals, the dredging of harbors and rivers, the erec- 
tion and equipment of fortresses along the Belgian and 
German frontiers. 

In 1884 the Constitution was revised in that the principle RevisioE 
of life membership in the Senate was abolished. There were °^ *^^ 
75 such seats. It was provided that, as these seats became ^^^j^ 
vacant, they should be filled by the election of ordinary 
senators, for the regular term of nine years. 

Under the masterful influence of Jules Ferry, prime minis- 
ter in 1881, and again from 1883 to 1885, the Republic 
embarked upon an aggressive foreign policy. She estab- 
lished a protectorate over Tunis ; sent an expedition to 
Tonkin, to Madagascar; founded the French Congo. This Colonial 
policy aroused bitter opposition from the beginning, and P^^'^y* 
entailed large expenditures, but Ferry, regardless of grow- 
ing opposition, forced it through, in the end to his own 
undoing. His motives in throwing France into these ven- 



354 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



Increase 
of the 
national 
debt. 



tures were various. One reason was economic. France 
was feeling the rivalry of Germany and Italy, and Ferry 
believed that she must gain new markets as compensation 
for those she was gradually losing. Again, France would 
gain in prestige abroad, and in her own feeling of con- 
tentment, if she turned her attention to empire-building and 
ceased to think morbidly of her losses in the German war. 
Her outlook would be broader. Moreover, she could not 
afford to be passive when other nations about her were 
reaching out for Africa and Asia. The era of imperialism 
had begun. France must participate in the movement or be 
left hopelessly behind in the rivalry of nations. Under 
Ferry's resolute leadership the policy of expansion was 
carried out, and the colonial possessions of France were 
greatly increasedv but at the expense of political peace at 

home. 

THE RISE OF BOULANGISM 

Policies so decided, so far-reaching, so ambitious had 
many enemies — Clericals, Monarchists. Such sweeping un- 
dertakings as educational reform and empire-building were 
very expensive. The Government gave up all idea of 
economy, and was forced to negotiate new loans, thereby 
greatly increasing the national debt, and to levy new taxes. 
Moreover, there was a vigorous group of Republicans, the 
Radicals, whose leader was Clemenceau, who denounced these 
colonial enterprises as involving war, which ihej hated, 
as being an attack upon other peoples who had a right to 
be free, as expensive and therefore an unjustifiable luxury 
for a country that had been through the experience of 
France, and as tending to divert attention from domestic 
problems, whose solution they felt to be urgent. These Rad- 
ical Republicans demanded the separation of Church and 
State, the reduction of the powers of the Senate, an income 
tax that wealth might bear its proper proportion of the 
burdens of the state. The rivalry of the Republican factions, 
now lost all bounds, and when a false rumor reached Paris of a 



DISCONTENT WITH THE REPUBLIC 355 

failure of the war in Tonkin, these Radicals joined with the 
Monarchists and Clericals in May 1885 to overthrow Ferry, 
one of the strong figures of the Republic's history. Though 
he had vastly augmented the empire, public opinion had been 
so vehemently aroused by the campaign of attack and slander 
against him that he had become extremely unpopular. 

During the next three years, from 1886 to 1889, the 
political situation was troubled, uncertain, factious, nervous. 
There was no commanding personality in politics to give Death of 
elevation and sweep to men's ideas. Gambetta had died in Gambetta. 
1882 at the age of forty-two, and Ferry was most unjustly 
the victim of obloquy, from which he never recovered. Minis- 
tries succeeded each other with meaningless rapidity. 
Politics appeared to be merely a petty game of getting 
offices, not of pursuing matured policies of state. There 
was a great deal of discontent with the Republic. Many Discontent 
had been embittered by the policy of secularizing education ; ^ ^jj^^.^ 
many by the colonial ventures. The Republic was a parlia- 
mentary republic, and parliamentary institutions were in the 
opinion of many utterly discredited. The incessant changes 
of ministries, the petty and bitter personalities of political 
life, the absence of conspicuous leaders with large ideas, ren- 
dered France disillusioned and bored. The Republic was 
spending more than its income on the various undertakings de- 
scribed above, and deficits were the result, alarming the 
public mind. Just at this time, too, a scandal was un- 
earthed in President Grevy's own household. His son-in- 
law, Wilson, was found to be using his influence for pur- 
poses of trafficking in the bestowal of places in the Legion 
of Honor, and as a result, the President, in no sense in- 
volved, yet defending his son-in-law, was forced to resign, 
and was succeeded by Carnot, a moderate Republican (De- 
cember 3, 1887). Moreover, many believed that as no 
regime in France for a century had outlasted eighteen years, 
the Republic would form no exception, and the eighteen years 
were nearly up. 



356 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

Such a state of discontent and despondency, justified in 
part, in part fictitious, created a real crisis for the Re- 
public, in which its very life was at stake. If the Parlia- 
mentary Republic was unable to give a strong and intelli- 
gent government, might not France welcome a dictator, as 
she had done in the case of two previous republics? A 
person was at hand anxious to serve in this capacity, 
Boulanger, General Boulanger. A dashing figure on horseback, an 
attractive speaker. General Boulanger sought to use the 
popular discontent for his own advancement. Made Minis- 
ter of War in 1886, he showed much activitj^ seeking the 
favor of the soldiers by improving the conditions of life 
in the barracks, and b}'' advocating the reduction of the 
required term of service. He controlled several newspapers, 
which began to insinuate that under his leadership France 
could take her revenge upon Germany b}' a successful war 
upon that country. The scandal of the Legion of Honor 
decorations occurring opportune!}'-, and involving the resigna- 
tion of the President, encouraged his campaign. He posed 
as the rescuer of the Republic, demanding a total revision 
of the Constitution. His programme, as announced, was 
vague, but probably aimed at the diminution of the import- 
ance of Parliament, and the conferring of great powers upon 
the President, and his election directh-^ by the people, which he 
hoped would be favorable to himself. For three j^ears his 
personality was a storm center.' Discontented people of the 
most varied shades flocked to his support — Monarchists, 
Imperialists, Clericals, hoping to use him to overturn the 
Republic. These parties contributed money to the support of 
his campaign, which was brilliantly managed, with the view 
to focusing popular attention upon him. To show the popu- 
lar enthusiasm Boulanger now became a candidate for Parlia- 
ment in many districts where vacancies occurred. In five 
months (18SS) he was elected deputy six times. A seventh 
election in Paris itself, in January 1889, resulted in a 
brilliant triumph. He was elected by over 80,000 majority. 



COLLAPSE OF BOULANGISM 357 

Would he dare take the final step and attempt to seize 
power, as two Bonapartes had done before him? He did 
not have the requisite audacity to try. In the face of 
this imminent danger the Republicans ceased their dissen- 
sions and stood together. They assumed the offensive. 
The ministry summoned Boulanger to appear before the 
Senate, sitting as a High Court of Justice, to meet the 
charge of conspiring against the safety of the state. His 
boldness vanished. He fled from the country to Belgium. 
He was condemned by the Court in his absence. His party 
fell to pieces, its leader proving so little valorous. Two 
years later he committed suicide. The Republic had ^^^ 

weathered a serious crisis. In the elections to the Chamber 

weathers 

of Deputies of 1889 the Republicans defeated badly all oppo- the crisis, 
nents — Monarchists, Imperialists, Boulangists — gaining a 
majority of nearly a hundred and fifty. It was clear that 
the Republic was becoming year by year more solidly estab- 
lished in the devotion of the voters. This was shown again 
still more strongly four years later, in the elections of 1893. 
The utter collapse of Boulanger had several important 
consequences. It strengthened the Republic, proved its 
vitality, and discredited its opponents. It also discredited 
the idea of a revision of the Constitution. From now on 
conditions began to improve. The Exposition of 1889 in 
Paris was a great success, proved to all the world the re- 
markable recuperation of France, and was a reminder of 
the Revolution of 1789, from which the country had gained 
so much. Convinced that the Republic was to be perma- 
nent and not a transitory phenomenon, Pope Leo XIII 
ordered the bishops to cease their attacks upon it, 
and in Parliament a certain number of Catholic pohticians 
rallied to it. In 1891 an alliance was made with Russia, The Dual 
which ended the long period of diplomatic isolation, served lance. 
as a counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, 
Austria, and Italy, and satisfied the French people, as well as 
increased their sense of safety and their confidence in the 



358 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD RErUBLIC 

future. lu 1892 Franco ontorod upon a policy' of high 
tariffs for purposes of protection. 

The Republicans were hencefortli in an overwhehning ma- 
jority, but divided into various groups. The Radicals 
were more numerous tlian before, and a new party appeared, 
the Socialists, with some sixt^' members. As the Republic 
was becoming more solidly established, it was also becom- 
ing more radical. The history of the next fifteen years 
was to be the proof of this. 

In 189-i President Carnot was assassinated. Casimir- 
Perier was chosen to succeed him, but resigned after six 
months. Felix Faure, a moderate Republican, was chosen 
to succeed him. lender Faure the alliance with Russia was 
still further strengthened and proclaimed. This is the most 
important fact in the recent diplomatic history of France, 
tending to raise her international position, and to make 
her more contented by gratifying her self-esteem, and by in- 
creasing her sense of securit3\ 

Faure died in office in 1899. Under his presidency (1895- 
1899) the most, burning question of internal politics was 
the Dreyfus case, for many years a dominant issue, creating 
another serious crisis for the Republic. An examination of 
that case is essential to an understanding of recent French 
history. 

THE DREYFUS CASE 

The In October 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew, and 

?!5^^^ a captain in the artillery, attaciied to the General StalF, 
was arrested amid circumstances of unusual secrecy, was 
treated with great harshness, and was brought before a court- 
martial, where he was accused of treason, of transmitting 
important military documents to a foreign power, presuma- 
bly Germany. The accusation rested on a document that 
had come into the possession of the War Office, and was 
soon to be famous as the " bordereau," a memorandum 
merely containing a list of several documents said to be 



case. 



DREYFUS CONVICTED OF TREASON 359 

inclosed. The bordereau bore no address, no date, nor 
signature, but it was declared to be in the known hand- 
writing of Dreyfus. The court-martial, acting behind 
closed doors, found him guilty, and condemned him to ex- 
pulsion from the army and to imprisonment for life. In 
January 1895 he was publicly degraded in a most dramatic Dreyfus 
manner in the courtyard of the Military School, before ^ . 
a large detachment of the army. His stripes were torn prisoned, 
from his uniform, his sword was broken. Throughout this 
agonizing scene he was defiant, asserted his innocence, and 
shouted " Vive la France! " He was then deported to a 
small, barren, and unhealthy island off French Guiana, in 
South America, appropriately called Devil's Island, and was 
there kept in solitary confinement. A life imprisonment 
under such conditions would probably not be long, though 
it would certainly be horrible. 

No one questioned the justice of the verdict. The opinion 
was practically unanimous that he had received a traitor's 
deserts. Only the immediate family and circle of Dreyfus 
maintained that a monstrous wrong had been done, and 
demanded further investigation. Their protests passed un- 
heeded. The case was considered closed. 

It was reopened in 1896 by Colonel Picquart, one of the Picquart. 
youngest and most promising officers in the army, attached 
since June 1895 to the detective bureau, or Intelligence 
Department, of the General Staff. In the course of his 
duties he had become convinced that the " bordereau " was 
not the work of Dreyfus, but of a certain Major Esterhazy, 
who was shortly shown to be one of the most abandoned 
characters in the army. Picquart informed his superior, 
the Minister of War, of this discovery. The military 
authorities, instead of investigating the matter, not wishing 
to have the case reopened, sent Picquart to Tunis and 
Algeria, the purpose apparently being to get him out of 
the way. Colonel Henry was appointed to his place. 

By this time the public was becoming interested. Some 



360 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

of tlio documents in the famous case had found their way 
into print ; the m^^sterious elements in the proceedings 
aroused curiosit>^ and some uneasiness. 

Towartl tlie end of lSi)7, Scheurer-lvestner, a vice-presi- 
dent o( the Senate, who had become convinced of the inno- 
cence of Dreylns, tried to have the case reopeneil. His 
ett'orts met with the bhuit (statement of the prime minister, 
INlohne, that the Dreyfus case no hm^vr existed, was a 
cJiost- jngcc. Rut the fact that a man of such importance, 
and such known inlci;'ritv oi character and miml, as Scheurer- 
Kestner, was convinceil that a i-ruel wrong \vm\ been com- 
mitted, was oi unmistakabk^ consequence. The wrath of 
the anti-Dreyfus party was increased; criminations and re- 
criminations tiew back and forth. Race hatred of tlie <Iews, 
zeahmsly fanncil for several years by a group of journalists, 
fed the flames. 

Esterhazy was now brought before a court-martial, given 
a very travesty oi a trial, and triumphantly acquitted, con- 
gratulated, avic ciiiotion, by the members oi' the court itself 
(January 11, 1898). On the next day Colonel Ticquart 
Avas arrested ami imprisoned on charges made by Esterhazy. 
Zola On the day following that, January l^Jth, Emile Zola, the 

attempts to ^yell-known novelist, published a letter o( great boldness and 
reox>en the , .„. , , . , , , . ' , . 

pj^g^, brilliancy, m winch he nuule most scatlung charges agamst 

the jmlges of both the Dreyfus and Esterhazy courts-martial, 

and practically daivil the Cunermnent to prosecute him. His 

desire was thus to reopen the whole Dreyfus question. The 

Government prosecuted him in a trial which was a parody 

of justice, secured his condemnation to imprisonment and 

fine, and evadcil the (luestion o( Dreyfus. The Zola 

condemnation was later quashed by a higher court on a 

mere technicality. lie was later tried again, and again 

coifdeumed (July 1898) by default, having tied to London. 

'I'ho Dreyfus case had not been reopened. 

^leanwhile, the Melino ministry had been overthrown, and 

the Rrisson ministry had come into power, with Cavaignac 



CAVAIGNAC AND THE DREYFUS CASE 361 

as Minister of War. On July 7, 1898, Cavaignac, in- Speech of 

tending- to settle this troublesome matter once for all, made,,. Z^"^*'' 

'=' ..... Minister 

a speech before the Chamber of Deputies in which, omitting of War. 

all mention of the bordereau, he brought forward three docu- 
ments as new proofs of the guilt of Dreyfus. His speech was 
so convincing that the Chamber, by a vote of five hundred 
and seventy-two to two, ordered that it should be posted in 
every one of the thirty-six thousand communes of France. 
The victory was overwhelming. 

Immediately, however, Colonel Picquart wrote to Cavai- 
gnac that he could prove that the first two documents cited 
had nothing to do with Dreyfus, and that the third was an 
outright forgery. He was rearrested. It was immediately 
after this that Zola was condemned for the second time, as 
stated above. 

Events now took a most sensational turn. At the end of 
August the newspapers of Paris contained the announce- 
ment that Colonel Henry had confessed that he had forged 
the document which Picquart had declared was a forgery 
and that then he had committed suicide. Cavaignac re- 
signed, maintaining, however, that the crime of Henry did not 
prove the innocence of Dreyfus. 

The public was vastly disturbed by these events. Why 
was there any need of new proof to establish Dreyfus's 
guilt, and if the new proof was the work of crime, what 
about the original proof, the famous bordereau.? At this 
juncture the case Avas referred to the Court of Cassation, 
the highest court in France. While it was deliberating, the 
President, Faure, known as an anti-Dreyfusite, died suddenly 
under somewhat mysterious circumstances, and on February 
18, 1899, Emile Loubet, known to be favorable to a reopen- 
ing of the question, was chosen as his successor. 

Sensations showed no signs of abating. On June 2nd, 
Esterhazy, who had fled to England, announced that he had 
himself written the bordereau. The enemies of Dreyfus now 
asserted that he had simply been bribed by the Dreyfus 



362 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



Court 

of Cassation 

orders a 

retrial of 

Dreyfus. 



Dreyfus 
again 
declared 
guilty. 



Dreyfus 
pardoned. 



party to make this declaration. On the next day the Court 
of Cassation annulled the decision of the court-martial of 
1894, and ordered that Dreyfus be tried again before a 
court-martial at Rennes. Dreyfus was brought from Devil's 
Island, and his second trial began in August 1899. 

This new trial was conducted in the midst of the most 
excited state of the public mind in France, and of intense 
interest abroad. Party passions were inflamed as they had 
not been in France since the Commune. The supporters 
of Dreyfus were denounced frantically as slanderers of the 
honor of the army, the very bulwark of the safety of the 
country, as traitors to France. 

At the Rennes tribunal, Dreyfus encountered the violent 
hostility of the high army officers, who had been his accusers 
five years before. These men were desperately resolved that 
he should again be found guilty. The trial was of an ex- 
traordinary character. It was the evident purpose of the 
judges not to allow the matter to be thoroughly probed. 
Testimony, which in England or America would have been 
considered absolutely vital, was barred out. The universal 
opinion outside France was, as was stated in the London 
Times, " that the whole case against Captain Dreyfus, as set 
forth by the heads of the French army, in plain combination 
against him, was foul with forgeries, lies, contradictions and 
puerilities, and that nothing to justify his condemnation 
had been shown." 

Nevertheless, the court, by a vote of five to two, declared 
him guilty, " with extenuating circumstances," an amazing 
verdict. It is not generally held that treason to one's 
country can plead extenuating circumstances. The court 
condemned him to ten years' imprisonment, from which the 
years spent at Devil's Island might be deducted. Thus the 
" honor " of the army had been maintained. 

President Loubet immediately pardoned Dreyfus, and he 
was released, broken in health. This solution was satis- 
factory to neither side. The anti-Dreyfusites vented their 



VINDICATION OF DREYFUS 363 

rage on Loubet. On the other hand, Dreyfus demanded 
exoneration, a recognition of his innocence, not pardon. 

But the Government was resolved that this discussion, 
which had so frightfully torn French society, should cease. 
Against the opposition of the Dreyfusites, it passed, in 1900, 
an amnesty for all those implicated in the notorious case, 
which meant that no legal actions could be brought against 
any of the participants on either side. The friends of 
Dreyfus, Zola, and Picquart protested vigorously against the 
erection of a barrier against their vindication. The bill, 
nevertheless, passed. 

Six years later, however, the Dreyfus party attained its Dreyfus 
vindication. The revision of the whole case was submitted to vi^^^iicated. 
the Court of Cassation. On July 12, 1906, that body quashed 
the verdict of the Rennes court-martial. It declared that 
the charges which had been brought against Dreyfus had no 
foundation, that the bordereau was the work of Esterhazy, 
that another document of importance was a forgery, that 
the Rennes court-martial had been guilty of gross injustice 
in refusing to hear testimony that would have established 
the innocence of the accused. The case was not to be sub- 
mitted to another military tribunal but was closed. 

The Government now restored Captain Dreyfus to his 
rank in the army, or rather, gave him the rank of major, 
allowing him to count to that end the whole time in which 
he had been unjustly deprived of his standing. On July 
21, 1906, he was invested with a decoration of the Legion 
of Honor in the very courtyard of the Military School, 
where eleven years before, he had been so dramatically de- 
graded. Colonel Picquart was promoted brigadier-general, 
and shortly became Minister of War. Zola had died in 
1903, but in 1908 his body was transferred to the Pantheon, 
as symbolizing a kind of civic canonization. Thus ended 
the " Affair." 

The Dreyfus case, originally simply involving the fate 
of an alleged traitor, had soon acquired a far greater sig- 



364 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

Significance nificance. Party and personal ambitions and interests 
of the sought to use it for purposes of their own, and thus the 

question of legal right and wrong was woefully distorted 
and obscured. The Anti-Semites used it to inflame the 
people against the Jews. They won the support of the 
Clericals, ingeniously suggesting that the so-called anti- 
religious legislation of the Third Republic, particularly that 
establishing secular education, was really the work of the 
Jews, influencing politicians by their money, and that the 
Jews were now getting control of the army, and that 
Dreyfus himself showed how they would use it for traitorous 
purposes. Further, reactionaries of all kinds joined the 
anti-Dreyfus party: Monarchists, anxious to discredit the 
Republic, that thus they might profit ; so-called Nationalists, 
anxious to change the government along the lines of Boulan- 
gism and to adopt a vigorous foreign policy. On the other 
hand, there rallied to the defense of Dreyfus those who 
believed in his innocence, those who denounced the hatred of 
a race as a relic of barbarism, those who believed that the 
military should be subordinate to the civil authority and 
should not regard itself above the law, as these army officers 
were doing; all who believed that the whole opposition was 
merely conducting an insidious, covert, dangerous attack 
upon the Republic, and all who believed that clerical influence 
should be kept out of politics. 

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 

Formation One result of the Dreyfus agitation was the creation in 

of the ^Yie Chamber of Deputies of a strong; coalition, called the 

" Bloc " ir o ' 

" Bloc," which consisted of the Radical Republican and 
Socialist parties. This coalition has, in the main, sub- 
sisted ever since, and has controlled the government. Its 
first conspicuous head was Waldeck-Rousseau, a leader of 
the Parisian bar, a former follower of Gambetta. In 
October 1900, Waldeck-Rousseau, then prime minister, made 
a speech at Toulouse which resounded throughout France. 



GROWTH OF THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS 365 

and which foreshadowed a policy which has filled the recent 

history of France. The real peril confronting France, he ftuestion 

• 1 r it, • £ ^• • J of Church 

said, arose irom the growing power or religious orders — 

orders of monks and nuns. " In this country, whose moral 
unity has for centuries constituted its strength and great- 
ness, two classes of young people are growing up ignorant of 
each other until the day when they meet, so unlike as to risk 
not comprehending one another. Such a fact is explained 
only by the existence of a power which is no longer even 
occult, and by the constitution in the state of a rival 
power." By which was meant that the youth of France were 
growing up, divided into two classes, whose outlook upon 
life, whose mental processes, whose opinions concerning pol- 
itics and morals were so widely at variance that the moral 
unity of the nation was destroyed. And the cause of this was 
the astonishing and dangerous growth in recent years of 
religious orders or Congregations, whose influence upon a 
considerable and increasing section of the young was highly 
harmful. Here was a power that was a rival of the State. 
Waldeck-Rousseau pointed out that these orders, not author- 
ized under the laws of France, were growing rapidly in wealth Growth of 

and numbers ; that between 1877 and 1900 the number of ^^^i^io^s 

orders, 
nuns had increased from 14,000 to 75,000 m orders not 

authorized; that the monks numbered about 190,000; that 
their property, held in mainmorte, estimated at about 50,- 
000,000 francs in the middle of the century, had risen to 
700,000,000 in 1880, and was more than a billion francs 
in 1900. This vast absorption of wealth, thus withdrawn 
from circulation, was an economic danger of the first im- 
portance. But the most serious feature was the activity of 
these orders in teaching and preaching. Waldeck-Rosseau 
believed that the education they gave was permeated with 
a spirit of hostility to the Republic ; that the traditional 
hostility of the Roman Catholic Church to liberty was in- 
culcated ; that this Roman spirit was a menace in a country 
that believed in liberty ; that it constituted a political danger 



366 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The 

Law of 
Associa- 
tions. 



Eeligious 
orders for- 
bidden to 
engage in 
teaching. 



to the State which Parliament must face ; that to preserve 
the Republic defensive measures must be taken. Holding this 
opinion, the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry secured the passage, 
July 1, 1901, of the Law of Associations, which provided, 
among other things, that no religious orders should exist 
in France without definite authorization in each case from 
Parliament. It was the belief of the authors of this bill that 
the Roman Catholic Church was the enemy of the Republic, 
that it was using its every agency against the Republic, that 
it had latterly supported the anti-Dreyfus party in its 
attempt to discredit the institutions of France, as it had done 
formerly under MacMahon. Gambetta had, at that time, 
declared that the enemy was the clerical party. " Clerical- 
ism," said M. Combes, who succeeded Waldeck-Rousseau in 
1902, " is, in fact, to be found at the bottom of every 
agitation and every intrigue from which Republican France 
has suffered during the last thirty-five years." 

Animated with this feeling the Associations Law was en- 
forced with rigor in 1902 and 1903. Many orders refused 
to ask for authorization from Parliament; many which asked 
were refused. Tens of thousands of monks and nuns were 
forced to leave their institutions, which were closed. By 
a law of 1904 it was provided that all teaching by religious 
orders, even by those authorized, should cease within ten years. 
The State was to have a monopoly of the education of the 
young, in the interest of the ideals of liberalism it represented. 
Combes, upon whom fell the execution of this law, suppressed 
about five hundred teaching, preaching, and commercial 
orders. This policy was vehemently denounced by Catholics 
as persecution, as an infringement upon liberty, the liberty 
to teach, the liberty of parents to have theit children edu- 
cated in denominational schools if they preferred. 

This, as events were to prove, was only preliminary to 
a far greater religious struggle which ended in the com- 
plete separation of Church and State, the disestablishment 
of the former, the laicization of the latter. 



THE CONCORDAT OF 1801 367 

The relations of the Roman Catholic Church and the State The 
down to 1905 were determined by the Concordat, concluded Concordat 
between Napoleon I and Pius VII in 1801, and put into force 
in 1802. The Concordat provided that the archbishops and 
bishops should be appointed by the State with the consent of 
the Pope; that the bishops should appoint the priests, but 
only with the consent of the Government ; that the State 
should pay the salaries of the clergy, both priests and bishops, 
who thus became a part of the administrative system of 
the country. Ecclesiastical property, cathedrals, parish 
churches, residences of bishops and priests, and seminary 
buildings had all been declared the property of the nation 
in 1789, and still remained such, but these buildings were 
to be placed at the disposal of the clergy. Thus the Church 
was harnessed to the State, which had extensive powers over 
it. 

This system remained undisturbed throughout the nine- 
teenth century, under the various regimes, but with the 
advent of the Third Republic serious friction began to de- 
velop. The Republicans believed in the thorough seculari- 
zation of the State, and they were resolved that the clergy 
should not use their power over men's minds and consciences 
in opposition to the acts or principles of the Republic. 
In their determination to abolish ecclesiastical influence in 
the State, many measures were passed, between 1881 and 
1903 ; schools were made undenominational, no clergyman Anti- 
might teach in them, no religious exercises might be conducted ^ ^^^^^ 
. 1 ' . PI. ,1 legislation, 

in them ; prayers at the sessions of Parliament were abol- 
ished; hospitals were made secular; divorce, Vt^hich had been 
abolished in 1814, was restored, and, as just described, the 
religious orders were brought into subjection to the State, 
and, indeed, largely dispersed. These acts were partly the 
reply of the Republicans to the anti-republican activity of 
the ecclesiastics which ran through the whole thirty years, 
partly the cause of that activity. The clergy were not 
friendly to the Republic, from which they drew their salaries. 



368 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



The clergy 
in the 
Dreyfus 
affair. 



The 

abrogation 
of the 
Concordat. 



This is unquestionable. The Pope himself recognized it 
when, in 1893, he urged the clergy to accept the Republic 
as their lawful government. Many Republicans were not 
only intent upon maintaining the Republic, but were anxious 
to undermine religion, considering it an obstacle in the way 
of progress, of civilization. But many who were not opposed 
to religion believed that religion did not concern the State, 
but was a private matter. They held that the State had 
no right to tax people for the support of a Church in which 
many had no belief or interest ; that the State had no right 
to favor one denomination over another or over all others ; 
that it must, in justice to all its citizens, be purely secular, 
entirely neutral toward all creeds and churches. 

There was ceaseless friction, then, for thirty years between 
Church and State. The opposition of the Republicans was 
augmented by the activity of the clergy in the Dreyfus 
affair. Diplomatic incidents, in themselves of comparatively 
slight importance, brought matters to a head. In April 
1904 the President of France, Loubet, went to Rome to 
render a visit to Victor Emmanuel III, a " usurper " in the 
eyes of the Pope. The latter protested to the Catholic 
powers of Europe against what he called " a grave offense 
to the Sovereign Pontiff." The French in turn resented 
what they regarded as an impertinent interference with their 
conduct of their foreign relations. Other disturbing in- 
cidents followed. These incidents did not cause the rupture ; 
they merely furnished the occasion. 

Ever since June 1903, a parliamentary committee had been 
studying the problem and trying to draft a measure of 
separation of Church and State. A law was finally passed, 
December 9, 1905, which abrogated the Concordat of 1801. 
The State was henceforth not to pay the salaries of the 
clergy; on the other hand, it relinquished all rights over 
their appointment. It undertook to pay pensions to clergy- 
men who had served many years, and were already well ad- 
vanced in age ; also to pay certain amounts to those who had 



THE ASSOCIATIONS OF WORSHIP 369 

been in the priesthood for a few years only. In regard 
to the property, which, since 1789, had been vested in the 
nation, the cathedrals, churches, chapels, it was provided 
that these should still be at the free disposal of the Roman 
Catholic Church, but that they should be held and managed 
by so-called "Associations of Worship" (associations ^^^ocia- 
cultuelles), which were to vary in size according to the J,°"^,° 
population of the community. 

The law contained many provisions designed to prevent 
these associations from amassing more than a given small 
amount of wealth by legacies, gifts, or otherwise; and to 
prevent the clergy, now cut off from all official connection 
with the State, from using their influence against the Re- 
public. The Church must not become too powerful. It was 
stated that the property thus to be left in the hands of the 
associations amounted to over a hundred million dollars. 
The disestablished Church would not have to make this 
enormous expenditure for the construction of new places 
of worship. A year was given for the making of the 
necessary arrangements.^ 

This law was not universally condemned by the Catholics 
of France. Many believed that the Church should 
adapt itself to it, at least provisionally. Seventy-four 
bishops decided to give it a trial if a certain alteration 
could be made in the character of the Associations of 
Worship. 

It is probable that this change would have been conceded Opposition 
by the Government, but this was not to be tested, for Pope 
Pius X condemned the law of 1905 unreservedly. He de- 
clared that the fundamental principle of separation of Church 
and State is " an absolutely false thesis, a very pernicious 
error." He denounced the Associations of Worship as giving 
the administrative control, not " to the divinely instituted 

* The Separation Law applied also to Protestant and Jewish churches, 
separating them from all connection with the State, discontinuing pay- 
ment by the State of the salaries of their clergymen. These sects were 
in favor of the law. 



870 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 



Law of 
Jan. 2, 
1907. 



Separation 
of Church 
and State. 



hierarchy, but to an association of laymen," and declared that 
this was a violation of the principle on which rested the 
Church which " was founded by Jesus Christ." 

The Pope's decision was final and decisive for all Catholics. 
It was based on fundamentals. No change in details could 
alter it. The bishops who had been willing to try the new 
law acquiesced in its condemnation. What would Parlia- 
ment do about it.? The year was running out. Would 
the churches be closed.? If so, would not France be drawn 
into a lamentable religious war, the outcome of which no one 
could foretell.? The Government was determined to avoid 
that contingency. The Minister of Public Worship, Briand, 
decided to apply to the situation a law passed in 1881 regu- 
lating the holding of public meetings. Designed for secular 
meetings, there was nothing to prevent its being applied to 
religious. It was therefore announced that priests might 
make use of the churches after merely filing the usual appli- 
cation, which should cover a whole year. This compromise 
also was rejected by the Pope. 

Parliament therefore passed a new law, promulgated 
January 2, 1907. By it most of the privileges guaranteed 
the Roman Catholic Church by the Law of 1905 were abro- 
gated. The critical point was the keeping of the churches 
open for public worship. It was provided that their use 
should be gratuitous, and should be regulated by contracts 
between the priests and the prefects or mayors. These 
contracts would safeguard the civil ownership of the build- 
ings, but worship would go on in them as before. This 
system appears to be gradually gaining lodgment in the life 
of France. 

The result of this series of events and measures is this. 
Church and State are definitively separated. The people have 
apparently approved in recent elections the policy followed 
by their Government. Bishops and priests no longer receive 
salaries from the State. On the other hand they have liber- 
ties which they did not enjoy under the Concordat, such as 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 371 

rights of assembly and freedom from governmental par- 
ticipation in appointments. The faithful must henceforth 
support their priests, and bear the expenses of the Church. 
Whether private contributions will prove sufficient remains 
to be seen. The churches have been left them by this prac- 
tical but irrational device. Other ecclesiastical buildings, 
such as the palaces of bishops, the rectories of priests, and 
the edifices of theological seminaries, have been taken from 
ecclesiastical control, and are now used for educational or 
charitable purposes, or as government offices. The former 
palace of the Archbishop of Paris is at present occupied by 
the Minister of Labor. The famous seminary of St. Sulpice 
is now used in connection with the Luxembourg Museum. 

ACQUISITION OF COLONIES IN THE NINETEENTH 
CENTURY 

France, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had "^^^ Trench 
possessed an extensive colonial empire. This she had lost to gjjjpij.g_ 
England as a result of the wars of the reign of Louis XV, 
the Revolution, and the Napoleonic period, and in 1815 
her possessions had shrunk to a few small points, Guadaloupe 
and Martinique in the West Indies, St. Pierre and Miquelon, 
off Newfoundland, five towns on the coasts of India, of 
which Pondicherry was the best known, Bourbon, now called 
Reunion, an island in the Indian Ocean, Guiana in South 
America, which had few inhabitants, and Senegal in Africa. 
These were simply melancholy souvenirs of her once proud 
past, rags and tatters of a once imposing empire. 

In the nineteenth century she was destined to begin again, 
and to create an empire of vast geographical extent, only 
second in importance to that of Great Britain, though vastly 

^ See the admirable and detailed article by Professor Othon Guerlac 
in Political Science Quarterly, June 1908, entitled, " Church and State 
in France." The best and fullest account of this subject is to be found 
in Debidour, L'eglise catholique et I'etat sous la troisi^me r^publique 
Vol. II, 231-498. Most of the important documents are appended. 



372 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

inferior to that. The interest in conquests revived but slowly 
after 1815. France had conquered so much in Europe from 
1792 to 1812 only to lose it as she had lost her colonies, that 
conquest in any form seemed but a futile and costly display 
of misdirected enterprise. Nevertheless, in time the process 
began anew, and each of the various regimes which have suc- 
ceeded one another since 1815 has contributed to the build- 
ing of the new empire. 
Algeria. The beginning was made in Algeria, on the northern coast 

of Africa, directly opposite France, and reached now in less 
than twenty-four hours from Marseilles. Algeria was nom- 
inally a part of the Turkish Empire, but the power of the 
Sultan was insignificant. A native Dey was the real ruler. 
The population consisted of Arabs, a nomadic and pastoral 
people, descendants of the Arabian conquerors of the sev- 
enth century, and of Berbers, an agricultural people, de- 
scendants of the natives who, more than twenty centuries 
before, had fought the Carthaginians. All the people were 
Mohammedans. The capital was an important town, Algiers. 

Down to the opening of the nineteenth century Algeria, 
Tunis, and Tripoli, nominally parts of the Ottoman Empire, 
were in reality independent, and constituted the Barbary 
States, whose main business was piracy. But Europe was 
no longer disposed to see her wealth seized and her citizens 
enslaved until she paid their ransom. In 1816 an English 
fleet bombarded Algiers, released no less than 3,000 Chris- 
tian captives, and destroyed piracy. 

The French conquest of Algeria grew out of a dispute 
concerning a loan made by the Dey to the Directory in 1797. 
This dispute ended in insults by the Dey to France, with 
the result that in 1830 the latter power sent a fleet of a 
hundred ships, and five hundred transports across the 
Mediterranean, and seized the capital. France had not in- 
tended the conquest of the whole country, only the punish- 
ment of an insolent Dey, but attacks being made upon her 
from time to time, which she felt she must crush, she was 



ACQUISITION OF COLONIES 373 

led on, step by step, until she had everywhere established 
her power. All through the reign of Louis Philippe this 
process was going on. Its chief feature was an intermittent 
struggle of fourteen years with a native leader, Abd-el-Kader, 
who proclaimed and fought a Holy War against the in- 
truder. In the end (1847) he was forced to surrender, and 
France had added what is still her most important colony. 
This is also another episode in the dismemberment of the 
Turkish Empire, whose disintegration in Europe, in the 
Balkan peninsula, is elsewhere described. 

Under Napoleon III, the beginning of conquest in another Other 

part of Africa was made. France had possessed, since the "^^^ 
^ , . .11 conquests, 

time of Louis XIII and Richelieu, one or two miserable ports 

on the western coast, St. Louis the most important. Under 
Napoleon III, the annexation of the Senegal valley was 
largely carried through by the efforts of the governor, 
Faidherbe, who later distinguished himself in the Franco- 
German war. Under Napoleon III also, a beginning 
was made in another part of the world, in Asia. The perse- 
cution of Christian natives, and the murder of certain French 
missionaries gave Napoleon the pretext to attack the king 
of Annam, whose kingdom was in the peninsula that juts 
out from southeastern Asia. After eight years of inter- 
mittent fighting France acquired from the king the whole 
of Cochin-China (1858-67), and also established a pro- Cochin- 
tectorate over the kingdom of Cambodia, directly north. China. 

Thus, by 1870, France had staked out an empire of about 
700,000 square kilometers, containing a population of about 
six million. 

Under the present Republic the work of expansion and Expansion 
consolidation has been carried much further than under all mr^j^ 
of the preceding regimes. There have been extensive annex- Republic, 
ations in northern Africa, western Africa, the Indian Ocean, 
and in Indo-China. 

In northern Africa, Tunis has passed under the control 
of France. This was one of the Barbary states, and was 



374* FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

nominally a part of the Turkish Empire, with a Bey as 
sovereign. After establishing herself in Algeria, France 
desired to extend her influence eastward, over this neigh- 
boring state. But Italy, now united, began about 1870 
to entertain a similar ambition. France, therefore, under 
the ministry of Jules Ferry, an ardent believer in colonial 
expansion, sent troops into Tunis in 1881, which forced the 
Bey to accept a French protectorate over his state. The 
French have not annexed Tunis formally, but they control it 
absolutely through a Resident at the court of the Bey, whose 
advice the latter is practically obliged to follow. 
Western In western Africa, France has made extensive annexa- 

Ainca. tions in the Senegal, Guinea, Dahomey, the Ivory coast, and 

the region of the Niger, and north of the Congo. By 
occupying the oases in the Sahara she has established her 
claims to that vast but hitherto unproductive area. This 
process has covered many years of the present Republic. 
The result is the existence of French authority over most 
of northwest Africa, from Algeria on the Mediterranean, 
to the Congo river. This region south of Algeria is called the 
French Soudan, and comprises an area seven or eight times 
as large as France, with a population of some fourteen 
millions, mainly blacks. There is some discussion of a Trans- 
Saharan railroad to bind these African possessions more 
closely together. 

In Asia, the Republic has imposed her protectorate over 
the kingdom of Annam (1883) and has annexed Tonkin, 
taken from China after considerable fighting (1885). In 
Madagascar, the Indian Ocean, she has conquered Madagascar, an 
island larger than France herself, with q, population of two 
and a half million. A protectorate was imposed upon that 
country in 1895, after ten years of disturbance, but after 
quelling a rebellion that broke out the following year, the 
protectorate was abolished, and the island was made a 
French colony. 

Thus, at the opening of the twentieth century, the empire 



EXTENT OF FRENCH COLONIAL EMPIRE 375 

of France is eleven times larger than France itself, has an 
area of six million square kilometers, and a population of 
about fifty millions, and a rapidly growing commerce. Most 
of this empire is located in the tropics, and is ill adapted to 
the settlement of Europeans. Algeria and Tunis, however, 
oiFer conditions favorable for such settlements. They con- 
stitute the most valuable French possessions. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

The Kingdom of Italy, as we have seen, was established 
in 1859 and 1860. Venetia was acquired in 1866, and Rome 
in 1870. In these cases, as in the preceding, the people 
were allowed to express their wishes by a vote, which, in 
both instances, was nearly unanimous in favor of the annexa- 
tion ; in the former case by about 647,000 votes to 60 ; in 
the latter by about 130,000 to 1,500. 
Difficulties The new kingdom had to face problems of the gravest 

confronting g^^^ most varied character, problems which the struggle 
the new . . . 

kingdom. ^^^ unity, so absorbing, had obscured, but which now ap- 
peared in all their saliency. Political unity had been gained, 
but not moral unity. " We have united Italy," said 
D'Azeglio in 1861, " now let us unite Italians," by which 
was meant that peoples differing in their historical evolution, 
in their institutions, in their economic life, in their tempera- 
ments, and which had for centuries regarded each other with 
indifference or animosity, must be made to feel that they were 
one. These peoples had never been united since the fall 
of Rome, and Venetians, Sicilians, Tuscans, Romans, Pied- 
montese, differed profoundly. The contrast was sharpest 
between the north and the south. They were like two differ- 
ent countries. " To harmonize north and south," said 
Cavour, " is harder than fighting with Austria or struggling 
with Rome." A fusion of such dissimilar elements could 
only be slowly achieved, and must be the result of many 
forces. But it must imperatively be the first object of 
Italian statesmen to create a common patriotism, and mutual 
interests. 

376 



DIVERSE ELEMENTS IN THE KINGDOM S17 

Since 1815 there had been several states, each with its 
own government, its own diplomatic corps, its own courts, 
system of taxation, its own tariff, and coinage. This variety 
could not be preserved in the new kingdom, which was not a 
federal state, like Germany, but a single government, unitary. 
Only one section had had training in parliamentary govern- 
ment, Piedmont, and that only since 1848. The others had Piedmont 

been under despotisms, severe as in Naples, enlightened as in ^^°"® 

ftccustomcd. 
Tuscany. Piedmont had accomplished the great work of ^^ constitu- 

unification, yet it was not, like Prussia, larger than all tional gov- 

the other states combined, but was a mere fraction of four ernment. 

or five millions out of twenty-two or more. It could not, 

therefore, impose its will upon the others as Prussia could 

upon Germany. Could elements so dissimilar, men so little 

likely to understand each other's point of view, so little 

dominated by the same ideals, work together effectively.? 

Might they not tear down the whole edifice, the mere shell 

of which had been so painfully erected? Now that Italy 

was united, it must be thoroughly transformed that it might 

continue. " Unify to improve," said Cavour, " improve to 

consolidate." A work of organization, so vast and varied, 

would need, not years, but generations. In 1870, after the 

fall of Rome, Victor Emmanuel showed that he understood 

the situation. " Italy is united and free ; it remains for us 

henceforth to make her great and happy." This was the 

programme of the Government. 

This work, begun in 1861, has continued ever since, 
marked by notable achievements, by distressing failures, 
but, on the whole, by distinct and great progress. Only 
certain features of the later story can be indicated here. 

The work of construction was undertaken earnestly. In 
1861 the Constitution of Piedmont was adopted, with slight 
variations, as the Constitution of Italy. There was to be a The Con- 
parliament of two chambers, a Senate and a Chamber of 
Deputies. The suffrage for the latter was to be the same 
as it had been for the Lower House in Piedmont. The full 



378 



THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



The 

question 
of the 
Papacy. 



parliamentary system was introduced, ministers representing 
the will of the Lower Chamber and controlled by it, legisla- 
tion enacted by the two Houses. The first capital was Turin, 
then Florence in 1865, and finally Rome since 18T1. The 
kingdom was divided for administrative purposes into fifty- 
nine districts, resembling the French departments, which were 
increased to sixty-nine after the annexation of Venetia and 
Rome. This broke up the old provincial lines, centralized the 
state, by giving the appointment of all prefects and mayors 
of cities to the national government, tended to destroy the 
spirit of local individuality, and to exalt Italy and Italian 
patriotism. 

The most perplexing question confronting the new king- 
dom concerned its relations to the Papacy. The Italian 
Kingdom had seized, by violence, the city of Rome, over 
which the Popes had ruled in uncontested right for a 
thousand years. Rome had this peculiarity over all other 
cities, that it was the capital of Catholics the world over. 
Any attempt to expel the Pope from the city or to subject 
him to the House of Savoy would everywhere arouse the faith- 
ful, already clamorous, and might cause an intervention 
in behalf of the restoration of the temporal power. There 
were henceforth to be two sovereigns, one temporal, one 
spiritual, within the same city. The situation was absolutely 
unique and extremely delicate. It was considered necessary 
to determine their relations before the government was trans- 
ferred to Rome. It was impossible to reach any agreement 
with the Pope, as he refused to recognize the Kingdom of 
Italy, but spoke of Victor Emmanuel simply as the King of 
Sardinia, and would make no concessions in regard to his own 
The law of rights in Rome. Parliament, therefore, passed in Florence, 
Papal Guar- May 13, 1871, the Law of Papal Guarantees, a remarkable 
act defining the relations of Church and State in Italy. 

The object of this law was to carry out Cavour's prin- 
ciple of a " free Church in a free State," to reassure Catholics 
that the new kingdom had no intention of controlling in 



antees. 



THE LAW OF PAPAL GUARANTEES 379 

any way the spiritual activities of the Pope, though taking 
from him his temporal powers. Catholics must feel that the 
Pope was no creature of the Italian government, but had 
entire liberty of action in governing the Church. Conse- 
quently his person is declared sacred and inviolable. Any 
attacks upon him are, by this law, to be punished exactly as 
are similar attacks upon the King. He has his own diplo- 
matic corps, and receives diplomatic representatives from 
other countries. He has his court, the Curia Romana, as the The Curia 
King has his. That he may communicate with the outside B.omana. 
world directly, and not through agencies controlled by the 
Kingdom, he has his own independent postal and telegraph 
service. Certain places are set apart as entirely under 
his sovereignty : the Vatican, the Lateran, Castel Gan- 
dolfo, and their gardens. Here no Italian official may en- 
ter, in his official capacity, for Italian law and admin- 
istration stop outside these limits. A similar exemption 
holds wherever a conclave or a church council is held. In 
return for the income lost with the temporal power, the 
Pope is granted 3,225,000 francs a year by the Italian 
Kingdom. This law has been faithfully observed by the 
Italian government. But neither Pius IX, nor Leo XIII, nor 
Pius X has been willing to accept it. The Pope considers 
himself the " prisoner of the Vatican," and since 1870 has not '^^® 
left it to go into the streets of Rome, as he would thereby be . ., ^ 
tacitly recognizing the existence of another ruler there, the Vatican." 
" usurper." The Pope has never accepted the annuity. He 
has even forbidden Catholics to vote in national elections, 
or to accept national offices, as that would be a recognition 
that an Italian nation exists. They may vote in municipal 
elections. Municipalities existed long before the Kingdom. 

The Pope has never recognized the existence of the king- 
dom, and the solution of the question of the relations of the 
Church and the State seems as remote as ever. The state- 
ment of Victor Emmanuel on entering the city as sovereign, 
July 2, 1871, still describes the situation. " Yes, we are 



380 



THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Beath of 
Victor Em- 
manuel II. 



The edu- 
cational 
problem. 



in Rome, and we shall remain." The Italian Government 
has never feared the Pope, but it did for several years fear 
an intervention of Catholic powers, a danger which, with 
the lapse of time, has practically disappeared. 

Another difficult problem for the Kingdom was its financial 
status. The debts of the different states were assumed by it 
and were large. The nation was also obliged to make large 
expenditures on the army and the navy, on fortifications, 
and on public works, particularly on the building of rail- 
ways, which were essential to the economic prosperity of 
the country as well as conducive to the strengthening of 
the sense of common nationality. There were, for several 
years, large annual deficits, necessitating new loans, which, 
of course, augmented the public debt. Heroically did suc- 
cessive ministers seek to make both ends meet, not shrinking 
from new and unpopular taxes, or from the seizure and sale 
of monastic lands. Success was finally achieved, and in 
1879 the receipts exceeded the expenditures. 

In 1878 Victor Emmanuel II died and was buried in the 
Pantheon, one of the few ancient buildings of Rome. Over 
his tomb is the inscription, " To the Father of his Country." 
He was succeeded by his son Humbert I, then thirty-four 
years of age. A month later Pius IX died, and was suc- 
ceeded by Leo XIII, at the time of his election sixty-eight 
years of age. But nothing was changed by this change of 
personalities. Each maintained the system of his predecessor. 
Leo XIII, Pope from 1878 to 1903, following the precedent 
set by Pius IX, never recognized the Kingdom of Italy, nor 
did he ever leave the Vatican. He, too, considered himself a 
prisoner of the " robber king." 

Another urgent problem confronting the new kingdom 
was that of the education of its citizens. This was most 
imperative if the masses of the people were to be fitted for 
the freer and more responsible life opened by the political 
revolution. The preceding governments had grossly neg- 
lected this duty. In 1861 over seventy-five per cent, of 



EDUCATIONAL REFORMS 381 

the population of the Kingdom were illiterate. In Naples 
and Sicily, the most backward in development of all the 
sections of Italy, the number of illiterates exceeded ninety 
per cent, of the population ; and in Piedmont and Lom- 
bardy, the most advanced sections, one-third of the men 
and more than half of the women could neither read nor 
write. " Without national education there exists morally 
no nation," Mazzini had said. " The national conscience 
cannot be awakened except by its aid. Without national 
education, common to all citizens, the equality of civic 
duties and rights is an empty formula." 

In 1877 a compulsory education law was passed. This 
was extended by a new law passed in 1904. But as the 
support of primary schools rests with the communes, and 
as, in many cases, they have evaded their responsibility, the 
system of universal education has not been established in 
practice. Italy has done much during the last thirty years, 
but much remains to be done. Illiteracy, though diminish- 
ing, is still widely prevalent. Recent statistics show that 
forty per cent, of the recruits in the army are illiterate. 
Satisfactory results will probably not be obtained until the 
Government itself assumes the support and direction of the 
schools instead of leaving them in the hands of the local 
authorities. 

In 1882 an electoral reform, which had long been dis- Extension 
cussed, was passed. Hitherto the suffrage had been lim- 
ited to property-holders twenty-five years of age and older, 
paying an annual tax of at least forty lire. Under this 
system less than two and a half per cent, of the population 
possessed the right to vote. So widespread was illiteracy 
that it was not considered wise to proclaim universal suffrage. 
The property qualification was now reduced from forty 
hre to nineteen lire eighty centesimi, and the age quali- 
fication was lowered to twenty-one, and an additional method 
of securing the franchise was also established, namely an 
educational qualification. All men of twenty-one who have 



of the 
suffrage. 



382 



THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



The Triple 
Alliance. 



Francesco 
Crispi. 



Ambitious 
military 
and colonial 
policy. 



had a primary school education were given the franchise. 
This reform more than tripled the number of voters at 
once, from 627,838 to 2,049,461. Of these about two- 
thirds secured the right through meeting the educational 
qualification. While, therefore, the suffrage is not universal 
it tends to become so with the spread of elementary education. 

This period of internal reforms was interrupted by foreign 
politics. In 1882 Italy entered the alliance with Germany 
and Austria. The reasons were various : pique at France, 
dread of intervention in behalf of the Pope, and a desire 
to appear as one of the great powers of Europe. The 
result was that she was forced to spend larger sums upon 
her army, remodeled along Prussian lines, and her navy, 
thus disturbing her finances once more. 

Italy now embarked upon another expensive and hazard- 
ous enterprise, the acquisition of colonies, influenced in this 
direction by the prevalent fashion, and by a desire to rank 
among the world powers. Shut out of Tunis, her natural 
field, by France, she, in 1885, seized positions on the Red 
Sea, particularly the port of Massawa. Two years later 
she consequently found herself at war with Abyssinia. The 
minister who had inaugurated this movement, Depretis, died 
in 1887. He was succeeded by Crispi, one of the few 
striking personalities Italian politics have produced since the 
time of Cavour. Crispi threw himself heartily into the 
colonial scheme, extended the claims of Italy in East Africa, 
and tried to play off one native leader against another. 
To the new colony he gave the name of Eritrea. At the 
same time an Italian protectorate was established over a 
region in eastern Africa called Somaliland. But all this 
involved long and expensive campaigns against the natives. 
Italy was trying to play the role of a great power when 
her resources did not warrant it. The consequence of tliis 
aggressive and ambitious military, naval, and colonial policy 
was the creation again of a deficit in the state's finances, 
which increased alarmingly. The deficits of four years. 



COLONIAL POLICY 383 

ending January 1, 1891, amounted to the enormous sum of 
over seventy-five million dollars. To meet the situation new 
taxes had to be imposed upon a people already heavily over- 
burdened. The reaction of this upon internal poHtics was 
disastrous. The resultant economic distress expressed itself The 
in deep dissatisfaction with the monarchy, and in the growth resultant 
of republican and socialistic parties. Riots broke out in 
1889 in Turin, Milan, Rome, and in the southern province 
of Apulia. Crispi adopted a policy of stem repression, which Policy of 
restored quiet on the surface, but left a widespread feeling ^^P^^ssion. 
of rancor behind. He fell from office in 1891, but, his suc- 
cessor being unable to improve the financial situation and 
the internal conditions of the country, he came back into 
power in 1893 and ruled practically as a dictator until 1896. 
His policy was the same as before, vigorous repression of 
all opposition to the existing system. He made no attempt 
to remove the causes of discontent. 

But Crispi only gave fuller range to his excessive ambi- 
tions in the colonial field. Extending the field of occupation 
in East Africa he aroused the bitter opposition of Menelek, War with 
ruler of Abyssinia. The result was disastrous. The Italian Abyssinia, 
army of 14,000 under Baratieri, was overwhelmed in 1896 
by Menelek with 80,000, no less than 6,000 of the Italian 
troops perishing. This crushing defeat sealed the doom of 
Crispi, who immediately resigned. The Marquis di Rudini 
became prime minister and attempted a policy of pacifica- 
tion. Italy renounced her extreme claims, restricted her 
colonial area, and secured the release of the soldiers who 
were prisoners of war in the hands of Menelek. The re- 
pressive policy at home was abandoned, and an attempt was 
made to investigate the causes of discontent. But this 
policy was suddenly cut short by formidable and sanguinary 
riots that broke out in various parts of Italy in May 1898. 
The movement was general, though most bloody in Milan. 
Its cause was the wretchedness of the people, which in turn 
was largely occasioned by the heavy taxation resulting from 



384 THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 

these unwise attempts to play an international role hope- 
lessly out of proportion to the country's resources. In the 
south and center the movement took the form of " bread 
riots," but in the north it was distinctly revolutionary. 
" Down with the dynasty," was a cry heard there. All these 
movements were suppressed by the Government, but only 
after much bloodshed. They indicated widespread distress 
and dissatisfaction with existing conditions. 

Assassina- In July 1900, King Humbert was assassinated by an 

>, 4. I I^^li^i^ anarchist who went to Italy for that purpose from 
Paterson, New Jersey. Humbert was succeeded by his son 
Victor Emmanuel III, then in his thirty-first year. 

Victor Em- The new King had been carefully educated and soon 
* showed that he was a man of intelligence, of energy, and of 
firmness of will. He won the favor of his subjects by the 
simplicity of his mode of life, by his evident sense of duty, 
and by his sincere interest in the welfare of the people, shown 
in many spontaneous and unconventional ways. He became 
forthwith a more decisive factor in the government than 
liis father had been. He was a democratic monarch, in- 
different to display, laborious, vigorous. The opening decade 
of the twentieth century was characterized by a new spirit 
which, in a way, reflected the buoyancy, and hopefulness, and 
courage of the young King. But the causes for the new 
optimism were deeper than the mere change of rulers and 
lay in the growing prosperity of the nation, a prosperity, 
which, despite appearances, had been for some years pre- 
paring and which was now witnessed on all sides. The worst 
was evidently over. The national finances were being con- 
servatively managed. Since 1897 the receipts have con- 
stantly been larger than the expenses. Between 1901 and 
1907 the surpluses were successively thirty-two, sixty-nine, 
thirty-three, forty-seven, sixty-three, and one hundred and 
one, million lire. This situation, so highly creditable, was 
brought about by strict economy and by heavy taxation. 
The market price of the five per cent, bonds, which had fallen 



INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION 385 

as low as seventy-two in 1894, rose to par and above par. A 
beginning was also made in the imperative work of reducing 
taxes and of shifting somewhat their incidence, which was 
grossly unjust to the poorer classes. 

These facts were full of encouragement, but they repre- Industrial 
sented an effect as well as a cause. Behind a flourishing expansion, 
budget stood an expanding economic activity. Italy was 
becoming an industrial nation. This is the vital fact in 
the situation to-day. Metallurgy has made such progress 
in recent years that in the two lines of naval and railway 
construction Italy is no longer dependent upon foreign 
countries. The development of these two industries has given 
a powerful impulse to activity in other directions. The silk 
and cotton and chemical manufactures have rapidly ad- 
vanced. The merchant marine has greatly increased. 

More remarkable than the progress made in the last twenty 
years, and more engaging the public attention, is the progress 
that seems destined in the future, and for this reason : industry 
depended, up to the close of the nineteenth century, upon 
steam and steam depends upon coal. Italy is at a great 
disadvantage compared with other countries because she lacks 
the two indispensable elements — coal and iron — which she 
is therefore obliged to import. This is a tremendous handi- 
cap. But the last two decades of the century revealed to 
the world the possibility of the use of electricity as a source 
of energy for industrial pursuits. From electricity, " white 
coal," as it is sometimes called, Italy expects her transforma- Advent of 

tion into a great industrial power for, while Nature has re- ..... 
*=• . . . electricity. 

fused her coal, she has given her immense water power in the 
streams which flow rapidly from the Alps and Apennines. 
It has been estimated that the amount of energy she can 
draw from this source will be from three to five million horse- 
power. The motive power used in the manufacturing estab- 
hshments of the United States in 1900 was, according to 
the census report, eleven million, three hundred thousand 
horse-power. It is appropriate that the land of Volta and 



386 



THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 



Increase 
of the 
population. 



Problem of 
emigration. 



Galvani should see her future in the new agency which is 
already profoundly altering the conditions of modern in- 
dustry and which her mountain streams will furnish her so 
abundantly. 

This transformation into a great industrial state is not 
only possible but is necessary, owing to her rapidly increasing 
population, which has grown, since 1870, from about 25,- 
000,000 to nearly 35,000,000. The birth rate is higher than 
that of any other country of Europe. But during the same 
period the emigration from Italy has been large and has 
steadily increased. Official statistics show that, between 1876 
and 1905, over eight million persons emigrated, of whom 
over four million went to various South American countries, 
especially Argentina, and to the United States. Perhaps 
half of the total number have returned to their native land, 
for much of the emigration is of a temporary character. 
Emigration has increased greatly under the present reign, 
while the economic conditions of the country have begun 
to show improvement. This is explained by the fact that 
the industrial revival described above has not yet affected 
southern Italy and Sicily, whence the large proportion of 
the emigrants come. From those parts which have experi- 
enced that revival the emigration is not large. Only by an 
extensive growth of industries can this emigration be stopped 
or at least rendered normal. Italy finds herself in the posi- 
tion in which Germany was for many years, losing hundreds 
of thousands of her citizens each year. With the expansion 
of German industries the outgoing stream grew less until, 
in 1908, it practically ceased, owing to the fact that her 
mines and factories had so far developed as to give employ- 
ment to all. 

Though the conditions of Italian life present many grave 
problems, yet it is clear that the prosperity of the country 
is increasing. Discontent is not as widespread or as clam- 
orous as at the close of the nineteenth century. Even the 
enormous emigration is not evidence exclusively of poverty, 



THE PRESENT SITUATION 387 

but is, to some extent, due to the ease and cheapness of 
our present means of communication, and bears witness to 
the difference between Italian wages and foreign wages, to 
the fact that the labor market to-day is mobile, is, in fact, a 
world market. Victor Emmanuel III, by associating himself Italia 
actively with all works of national betterment, has strength- 
ened the hold of the monarchy upon the people. The repub- 
lican agitation appears moribund. And the governing classes 
of the state have profited by their mistakes, and have learned 
the truth of Cavour's assertion — that the first attribute of 
a statesman is " tact to discern the possible." 



CHAPTER XVII 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

AUSTRIA TO THE COMPROMISE OF 1867 

Austria's Austria, perilously near dissolution in 1848, torn by 

punis me revolutions in Bohemia, Hunecary* the Lombardo-Venetian 
of Hungary. . ... 

kingdom, and its influence in Germany temporarily para- 

Ij^zed, had emerged triumphant from the storm, and by 
1850 was in a position to impose her will once more upon 
her motley group of states. She learned no lesson from the 
fearful crisis just traversed, but at once entered upon a 
course of reaction of the old familiar kind. Absolutism was 
everywhere restored. Italy Avas ruled with an iron hand, 
Prussia was humiliated in a most emphatic manner at 
Olmiitz, the German Confederation was restored, and 
Austrian primacy in it conspicuously reaffirmed. Hungary 
felt the full weight of Austrian displeasure. She was con- 
sidered to have forfeited by her rebellion the old historic 
rights she had possessed for centuries. Her Diet was abol- 
ished, her local self-government, in her county assemblies, was 
suppressed, Croatia, Transylvania, and the Servian country 
were severed from her, and the Kingdom itself was cut up into 
five sections, each ruled separately. Hungary was hence- 
forth governed from Vienna and largely by Germans. She 
was for the next few years simply a vassal of Austria, whose 
policy was to crush and extinguish all traces of her separate 
nationality. Francis Joseph, however, found it in the end 
impossible to break the spirit of the Magyars, who bent 
beneath the autocrat but did not abate their claims. During 
the revolution, Francis Joseph had granted a constitution 
to the whole Empire (March 4, 1849). This was revoked 

388 



FRANCIS JOSEPH'S CHANGE OF POLICY 389 

December 31, 1851 " in the name of the unity of the empire 
and monarchical principles." For ten years absolutism and 
centralization prevailed throughout the dominions of the 
youthful ruler. One achievement of the revolution remained 
untouched, the abolition of feudalism, the liberation of the 
peasantry, a great ec».,nomic and social change benefiting 
millions of people. 

To perpetuate a system of this character the Government Failure of 
must sedulously avoid any disaster that would weaken its *^® "'^^^ ^^ 

TtalxT 

power, any crisis in which it would need the support of all 
its subjects. This it did not do. The crisis of 1859, the 
failure of that year in Italy, sealed the doom of a system 
universally odious, and which was now seen to be unable 
to maintain the integrity of the Empire. As a result of the 
war Austria was forced to cede Lombardy to Piedmont, 
and afterward to remain inactive while the Italians made 
waste paper of the Treaty of Zurich, which she had con- 
cluded with France. She was compelled to continue this 
passive attitude because of the utter demoralization of 
her finances, and particularly because of the threatening 
situation in Hungary. Austria's distress was Hungary's 
opportunity. Thousands of Hungarians had joined the 
armies opposed to her, and rebellion was likely to break 
forth at any moment in Hungary itself. Peace had to be 
secured at any price. 

This time the Austrian government profited by experience. Francis 
In order to increase the strength of the state by actively Joseph re- 
interesting his various peoples in it so that they would be ^^^.^^^ ^^ 
willing to make sacrifices for it, Francis Joseph resolved 
to break with the previous policy of his reign, to sweep 
away abuses, redress grievances, and introduce liberal re- 
forms. But the problem was exceedingly complicated, and 
was only slowly worked out after several experiments had 
been tried which had resulted in failure. The chief diffi- 
culty lay in the adjustment of the claims of the different 
races over which he ruled. How could these be granted, and 



390 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 



Federalism 
or centrali- 
zation ? 



Austria 
becomes a 
constitu- 
tional state, 



Hungary 
refuses to 
co-operate. 



yet the power of the monarchy remain strong, Austria remain 
a great European power, able to speak decisively in European 
councils? Opinion was divided as to the method to pursue, i 
There were at least two parties — those who wished to em- [ 
phasize the principle of federalism in the government, and j 
those who wished to emphasize the principle of unity. The I 
federalists demanded that the equality of all the countries ! 
within the Empire should be recognized, that each should 
make its own internal laws, and should administer them. 
Austria would then be a federal state with home rule as the 
recognized basis of the government of the several parts, and 
with a central parliament for purely imperial affairs. The ! 
other party, emphasizing the idea of unity, believed that the j 
central government should possess large powers in order to 
play a commanding role among the European states. That 
the unity of the Empire might be preserved, and emphasized 
home rule should be limited in scope, the central government 
must be endowed with great authority. 

The Emperor at first tried the federal system in 1860. 
This experiment not working to his satisfaction, he in- 
augurated a new system in 1861. Under this there was 
to be a parliament for the whole Empire, divided into two 
chambers, meeting annually. Its functions were important. 
The two chambers were to be a House of Lords, appointed 
by the Emperor, and a House of Representatives of 343 
members to be chosen by the local diets. (Hungary 85, 
Transylvania 20, Croatia 9, Bohemia 54, Moravia 22, 
Galicia 38). The local diets were to continue for local 
affairs but with reduced powers. By this constitution, 
granted by the Emperor, Austria became a constitutional 
monarchy. Absolutism as a form of government was aban- 
doned. 

But this constitution was a failure, and chiefly because 
of the attitude of the Hungarians. To the first parliament 
Hungary declined to send representatives, an attitude she 
maintained steadily for several years until a new arrange- 



THE RESISTANCE OF HUNGARY 391 

raent was made satisfactory to her. Why did she refuse 
to recognize a constitution that represented a great advance 
in liberalism over anything the Empire had known before? 
Why did she refuse to send representatives to a parliament 
in which she would have weight in proportion to the number 
of her inhabitants? Why did she steadily refuse to accept 
an arrangement that seemed both liberal and fair? 

It must be constantly remembered that Hungary consists 
of several races, and that of these races the Magyars have 
always been the dominant one, though in a numerical minority. 
This dominant race was divided into two parties, one of 
irreconcilables, men who bitterly hated Austria, who would 
listen to no compromise with her, whose ideal was absolute in- 
dependence. These men, however, were not now in control. 
They were discredited by the failures of 1849. The leaders 
of Hungary were now the moderate liberals, at whose head 
stood Francis Deak, the wisest and most influential Hun- 
garian statesman of the nineteenth century. These men 
were willing to compromise with Austria on the question 
of giving the requisite strength to the government of the 
whole Empire to enable it to play its role as a great European 
power, but they were absolutely firm in their opposition 
to the constitution just granted by Francis Joseph, and im- 
movable in their determination to secure the legal rights 
of Hungary. Their reasons for opposing the new constitu- Reasons 

tion, which promised so vast an improvement upon the old ^°^ ^^^ 

rcf *iis3,l 
unprogressive absolutism that had reigned for centuries, 

for thwarting the Emperor, who was frankly disposed to 

enter the path of liberalism, are most important. 

They asserted that Hungary had always been a separate The 

nation, united with Austria simply in the person of the Hungarians 

„ 1 1 1 • • TT T_ • assert their 

monarch, who was kmg m Hungary as he was emperor m , . 

his own hereditary states ; that he was king in Hungary only rights." 

after he had taken an oath to support the fundamental laws 

of Hungary, and had been crowned in Hungary with the 

iron crown of St. Stephen ; that these fundamental laws and 



392 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

institutions were in part centuries old, had in a sense been 
redefined in the laws of 1848, which Ferdinand I had 
formally accepted in their new statement, that no change 
could be made without the consent of both contracting 
parties ; that the Emperor-King as merely one party to the 
contract had no right to alter them in jot or tittle by any 
exercise of his own power, that they were therefore still 
the law of the land; that Hungary was an historic state, 
with definite boundaries, including Transylvania and Cro- 
atia ; " that a people which has had a past is never able 
to forget its history " ; that the new constitution was one 
" granted " by Francis Joseph, and if granted, might be 
withdrawn ; that whatever its abstract merits were, it was 
unacceptable by reason of its origin; that, moreover, it was 
designed for the whole Empire, and that its effect was to 
And demand make Hungary a mere province of Austria ; that what 

e res ora- ^.^^^ wanted was not a constitution, but the constitu- 
tion of their 
constitu- ^^^^ o^ Hungary, which had, since 1848, been illegally 

tion. suspended. 

This party diflPered from the revolutionary party of 
1848 and 1849 in that it recognized that the times did not 
permit a merely " personal " union of Austria and Hungary, 
but that the interests of each demanded a certain " real " 
union, a certain strength for the central government that 
should enable it to act with decision and authority in foreign 
affairs, and the party was prepared to make concessions 
enough to render this possible. Only, the concessions must 
come later, after the Emperor had formally recognized the 
historic rights of Hungary, and must come then only after 
fair discussion. The unity represented by the new parlia- 
ment it would never consent to. In that assembly it would 
be a minority outnumbered by " foreigners," for all the 
other peoples of the Empire were, In its eyes, foreigners ; 
it would not fuse Its individuality In the general mass of all 
the Inhabitants ; It was determined to preserve the historic 
personality of Hungary. Francis Joseph must first consider 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1867 393 

himself personally bound to accede to the laws of 1848, 
which his predecessor, Ferdinand, had ratified. 

The new experiment of an imperial parliament finally 
broke down beneath the impact of this persistent Hungarian 
refusal to accept it. For four years, from 1861 to 1865, 
there was a deadlock, neither side giving way. The con- A deadlock 
dition of the country grew worse, the deficit continued to 
increase. The Emperor, recognizing the failure of his plans, Francis 
recognizing that Hungary was really a separate nation, — Joseph 
strongly conscious of her own distinct history and person- 
ality and utterly unwilling to enter a unified monarchy 
however liberal, — ^finally determined to adapt himself to the 
situation. Negotiations were begun with the Hungarians, 
the object of which was to harmonize their claims with 
the unity and power of the Empire. These negotiations be- 
gan in 1865, were interrupted in 1866 by the Austro-Prus- 
sian war, and were completed in 1867. Indeed, the war facili- 
tated the great work, as showing once more how heavy was 
the cost to the Empire of Hungarian disaffection, how im- 
perative it was for the power of the monarchy that Hungary 
should be contented. Moreover, as by that war Austria 
was expelled from Germany, it was imperative for the mon- 
archy to gain additional strength elsewhere. The negotia- 
tions resulted accordingly, in 1867, in the Compromise or The 
Ausgleich, which is the basis of the Empire to-day. It was o°*P^O" 
accepted by the Emperor and the Parliaments of both coun- jge?, 
tries. Francis Joseph was in the same year crowned King 
of Hungary. 

Thus was created a curious kind of state defying classifica- 
tion. Neither federalism nor unity was the outcome of 
the long constitutional struggle, but dualism. The Empire The Dual 
was henceforth to be called Austria-Hungary, and was to be °^^^^ y* 
a dual monarchy. Austria-Hungary consists of two dis- 
tinct, independent states, which stand in law upon a plane 
of complete equality. They have the same flag. They have 
the same ruler, who in Austria bears the title of Emperor, 



394. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

in Hungary that of King. Each has its own parliament, 
its own ministry, its own administration. Each governs 
itself in all internal affairs absolutely without interference 
from the other. 

But the two are united, not simply in the person of the 
monarch. They are united for certain affairs regarded as 
common to both. There is a joint ministry composed 
of three departments : Foreign Affairs, War, and Finance. 
Each state has its own parliament, but there is no parliament 
in common. In order then to have a body that shall super- 
vise the work of the three joint ministries there was 
The Dele- established the system of " delegations." Each parliament 
gations. chooses a delegation of sixty of its members. These dele- 
gations meet alternately in Vienna and Budapest. They 
are really committees of the two parliaments. They sit 
and debate separately, each using its own language, and 
they communicate with each other in writing. If after three 
communications no decision has been reached a joint session 
is held in which the question is settled without debate by a 
mere majority vote. 

Other affairs, which in most countries are considered com- 
mon to all parts, such as tariff and currency systems, do 
not fall within the competence of the joint ministry or 
the delegations. They are to be regulated by agreements 
concluded between the two parliaments for periods of ten 
years, an awkward arrangement creating an intense strain 
every decade, for the securing of these agreements is most 
difficult. 
The This Compromise was satisfactory only to the Germans 

Compromise ^^^ ^^^ Magyars, each the dominant party in its section, 
satisfactory , i , . • i - -l 

only to the "^^ ^^^^ ^-^^^ ^^ ^ numerical mmority. 

dominant One of the important results therefore of the expulsion 

races. ^f Austria from Germany after the Austro-Prussian war 

of 1866 was the internal transformation of the Austrian 
Empire itself. The German element in that state was weak- 
ened, the Hungarians had to be appeased, and as a conse- 



THE DUAL MONARCHY 395 

quence the Ausgleich or Compromise of 1867 was worked 
out. By this the former Austrian Empire was divided into 
two states, the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of 
Hungary, the two together known henceforth as Austria- 
Hungary. The small river Leitha forms in part the bound- 
ary between the two, Hungary being known as Transleithania, 
Austria as Cislcithania. The capital of Austria is Vienna ; 
of Hungary, Budapest. The Constitution of the collective 
state is the Compromise of 1867, already described. Each 
state also possesses a constitution of its own. In Austria the Constitution 
Constitution of 1861 was liberally revised by five laws passed Austria, 
in 1867, by which full parliamentary government was es- 
tablished, the Emperor choosing his ministry from the 
majority party or group in Parliament. The Parliament or 
Reichsrath was to consist of two chambers, a House of Lords 
and a House of Representatives, which numbered at that 
time 203 members. These were chosen, not directly by the 
voters, but by the diets or local legislatures of each of the 
seventeen provinces into which Austria is divided, for each 
province has its local legislature for local purposes. 

In Hungary the Constitution of 1848 was restored, with Constitution 
some alterations. Thus Hungary had a parliament of two ° s ry- 

chambers, the Table of Magnates, composed chiefly of nobles, 
and the Table of Deputies, elected directly by the voters, 
all males twenty years of age and paying a certain amount 
in taxes. Though this amount was small it resulted in the 
exclusion of about three-fourths of the adult males. Thus 
in neither state did universal suffrage exist. A demand for 
this has since been repeatedly made in both countries with 
results that will appear later. 

Neither of the two states had a homogeneous population. The 
In each there was a dominant race, the Germans in Austria, don^inant 
the Magyars in Hungary. The Compromise of 1867 was 
satisfactory to these alone. In each country there were 
subordinate and rival races, jealous of the supremacy of 
these two, anxious for recognition and for power, and ren- 



$96 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

dered more insistent by the sight of the remarkable success 
of the Magyars in asserting their individuality. In Hun- 
gary there were Croatia, Slavonia, and Transylvania; in 
Austria there were seventeen provinces, each with its own 
diet, representing almost always a variety of races. Some 
of these, notably Bohemia, had in former centuries had 
a separate statehood, which they wished to recover; others 
were gaining an increasing self-consciousness, and desired 
a future controlled by themselves and in their own interests. 
Divisive The struggles of these races were destined to form the 

^.^^, most important feature of Austrian history during the next 

principle of ^o^'ty years. It should be noted that the principle of nation- 
mationality ality, so effective in bringing about the unification of Italy 
in Austria- ^^^ Germany, has tended in Austria in precisely the opposite 
direction, the splitting up of a single state into many. Dual- 
ism was estabhshed in 1867, but these subordinate races refuse 
to acquiesce in that as a final form. They wish to change 
the dual into a federal state, which shall give free play 
to the several nationalities. The fundamental struggle all 
these years has been between these two principles — dualism 
and federalism. These racial and nationalistic struggles 
have been most confusing, crossing each other in various 
ways, and rendered more complex by their connection with 
other forces, such as liberalism, clericalism, socialism. In 
the interest of clearness, only a few of the more important 
can be treated here. 

The Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, 
having had different histories since 1867, may best be treated 
separately. 

THE EMPIRE OF AUSTRIA SINCE 1867 

Austria The first years in Austria under her new constitution were 

since 1867, y^^^.^ ^f liberal reforms. The constitution guaranteed com- 
plete religious liberty. To give effect to this guarantee 
laws were passed greatly restricting the powers of the Roman 
Catholic Church. Henceforth all forms of religion were 



THE DEMANDS OF BOHEMIA 397 

on a basis of legal equality ; each person might freely I-iberal 

choose his church and that of his children, or might decline *^^^ ^ ^°^* 

connection with any. The public schools were to be open 

to all citizens without regard to creed. Churches might 

maintain schools of their own if they wished to. A form 

of marriage by civil authorities was established for those 

cases in which the priest refused to officiate. By these laws 

religious liberty and secular education were established. The 

Pope denounced them as " abominable," and declared them 

null and void " for the present and the future." Despite 

these fulminations they went into force. 

At this time also other useful laws were passed, regulating 
the finances, altering the judicial system, and introducing 
trial by jury, and reorganizing the military system along the 
successful Prussian lines of universal military service of three 
years, with service in the reserve for several years longer. 

At the same time the Austrian Government was con- Demands of 
fronted by questions far more baffling. Various nationali- ^^^ Czechs, 
ties, or would-be nationalities, demanded that they should 
now receive as liberal treatment as Hungary had received 
in the Compromise of 1867. The leaders in this movement 
were the Czechs of Bohemia, who, in 1868, definitely stated 
their position, which was precisely that of the Hungarians 
before 1867. They claimed that Bohemia was an historic 
and independent nation, united with the other states under 
the House of Hapsburg only in the person of the monarch. 
They demanded that the kingdom of Bohemia should be 
restored, that Francis Joseph should be crowned in Prague 
with the crown of Wenceslaus. 

The Galicians in the north, the Slovenes and Serbs in 
the south, brought forward similar, though not as sweeping, 
demands. These groups, imitating the successful methods 
of the Magyars, refused to sit in the Austrian Parliament 
in Vienna, declining to recognize the authority of institu- 
tions in the creation of which they had had no share. The 
moral authority of the new Parliament was therefore greatly 



398 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 



The 

Emperor 
prepares to 
concede 
them. 



Opposition 
of Germans 
and 
Magyars. 



Triumph of 
dualism. 



reduced. The agitation became so great that the Emperor 
decided to yield to the Bohemians. On September 14, 1871, 
he formally recognized the historic rights of the Kingdom 
of Bohemia, and agreed to be crowned king in Prague, as 
he had been crowned king in Budapest. Arrangements 
were to be made whereby Bohemia should gain the same 
rights as Hungary, independence in domestic affairs and 
union with Austria and Hungary for certain general pur- 
poses. The dual monarchy was about to become a triple 
monarchy. 

But these promises were not destined to be carried out. 
The Emperor's plans were bitterly opposed by the Germans 
of Austria, who, as the dominant class and as also a minority 
of the whole population, feared the loss of their supremacy, 
feared the rise of the Slavs, whom they hated. They were 
bitterly opposed, also, by the Magyars of Hungary, who de- 
clared that this was undoing the Compromise of 1867, and 
who feared particularly that the rise of the Slavic state of Bo- 
hemia would rouse the Slavic peoples of Hungary to demand 
the same rights, and the Magyars were determined not 
to share with them their privileged position. The opposi- 
tion to the Emperor's plans was consequently most emphatic 
and formidable. It was also pointed out that the manage- 
ment of foreign affairs would be much more difficult with 
three nations directing rather than two. The Emperor 
yielded to the opposition. The decree that was to place 
Bohemia on an equality with Austria and Hungary never 
came. Dualism had triumphed over federalism, to the im- 
mense indignation of those who saw the prize snatched from 
them. Where the Bohemians had failed, obviously the weaker 
groups — Galicians, Serbs — could not succeed. The Compro- 
mise of 1867 remained unchanged. The House of Hapsburg 
to this day rules over a dual, not over a federal state. 

A radical change in the constitution was thus definitely 
rejected. Gradually the extreme demands of the various 
races subsided. The Czechs lost much of their power by 



THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM 399 

splitting into two groups. The constitutional regime slowly 
struck root. For some years it was the Germans who con- 
trolled the Austrian Parliament and the ministry. In 18T3 a 
change was made in the electoral system. Hitherto the Electoral 
members of the Reichsrath, or Imperial Parhament, had 
been elected by the diets of the different provinces. This 
was objected to as giving the Reichsrath the appearance 
of a congress of delegates, rather than of a real parliament. 
Moreover, any diet, by refusing to elect delegates (as Bo- 
hemia had frequently done), could so reduce the national 
representation as to destroy its moral authority. The new- 
law of 1873 withdrew this power from the provincial diets 
and gave it directly to those who had the right to elect 
the diets. Now the right to choose the members of these diets 
was not vested in a general mass of electors, but was vested 
in certain groups or classes, four in number — the landowners, 
the cities, the chambers of commerce, and the rural districts. 
Each class elected a certain number of members of the diets. 
It was now provided that each should henceforth elect a cer- 
tain number of members of the Reichsrath. All that the 
change of 1873 accomplished was to substitute direct elec- 
tion by the four classes for indirect election by the diets. 
The number of members of the Reichsrath was increased 
from 203 to 353. The number of voters in each class 
and the relative weight of the individual voter varied 
enormously. Thus in 1890, in the class of landowners, 
there was one deputy to every 63 voters, one to 27 in the 
class of chambers of commerce, one to 2,918 in that of 
cities, one to 11,600 in that of rural districts. With such 
a system further demands for reform were inevitable, and 
have, as we shall see, figured prominently in later history. 

The German element maintained control of the Austrian 
Parliament as long as it remained united, but breaking up 
finally into three groups, and incurring the animosity of 
the Emperor by constantly blocking his measures, its minis- 
try fell in 1879, and was succeeded by one of a very different 



400 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 



The Taaffe 
ministry. 



The Slavs 
favored. 



Growth of 

radical 

parties. 



character under TaafFe. This ministry lasted fourteen 
years, from 1879 to 1893. While Taaffe steadily refused 
to alter the Constitution of 1867 in the direction of federal- 
ism, his policy nevertheless greatly stimulated the growth of 
the federalist spirit. Relying for parliamentary support 
upon the Czechs and Poles against the Germans, he was forced 
to make concessions to them. In Bohemia the Czechs were 
favored in various ways. They secured an electoral law which 
assured them a majority in the Bohemian Diet and in the 
Bohemian delegation to the Reichsrath; they obtained a 
university, by the division into two institutions of that of 
Prague, the oldest German university, founded in 1356. 
Thus there is a German University of Prague and a Czechish 
(1882). By various ordinances German was dethroned from 
its position as sole official language. After 1886 office- 
holders were required to answer the demands of the public 
in the language in which they were presented, either German 
or Czechish. This rule operated unfavorably for German 
officials, who were usually unable to speak Czechish, whereas 
the Czechs, as a rule, spoke both languages. 

In Galicia the Poles, though a minority, obtained control of 
the Diet, supported by the Taaffe ministry, and proceeded 
to oppress the Ruthenians ; in Carniola the Slovenes pro- 
ceeded to Slavicize the province. Thus the Slavs were 
favored during the long ministry of TaafFe, and the evolu- 
tion of the Slavic nationalities and peoples progressed at 
the expense of the Germans. 

Under this long administration the financial condition of 
Austria improved. The chronic deficit disappeared and 
receipts exceeded expenditures for the first time in many 
years. In social legislation the policies of Bismarck were 
imitated by the compulsory insurance of workingmen and the 
repression of Socialists, for it was also at this time that the 
Socialist party became prominent. This was, here as else- 
where, a radical democratic party, demanding universal 
suffrage, obligatory and free education, the complete laiciza- 



MOVEMENTS IN BOHEMIA 401 

tion of the state. This party was not local, like the racial 
and nationalistic groups, but was interprovincial, thus cut- 
ting across the parties already existing and increasing the 
confusion. 

In Bohemia there was a movement in favor of democracy, Division 
which was independent of the Socialists. The Czechs had among the 
long been divided into Old and Young Czechs. They 
had worked together as against the Germans, but now that 
they were in the main victorious in this, they flew apart. 
The Young Czechs were a democratic party, demanding 
universal suffrage, secular schools, liberty of the press and 
of public meetings. After 1887 this party, profiting by 
the concessions of the Taaffe ministry, began to agitate 
fiercely in favor of a reconstrution of Bohemian nationality, 
whereas the Old Czechs were willing to abide by the Com- 
promise of 1867. By 1891 the Young Czechs had swept 
the Old Czechs completely from the field. An attempt by 
the Government to stop this movement had resulted in total 
failure. The Germans of Bohemia, on the other hand, 
opposed with vehemence the nationalist aspirations of the 
Czechs. So fierce did race struggles become that in 1893 
the Government was forced to proclaim the state of siege 
in Prague. The situation became so difficult for the Taaffe 
ministry that it resigned in 1893. 

Thus racial movements and democratic movements were 
in full swing at the close of this long ministry. To satisfy 
the latter, Taaffe, just before his fall, brought forward 
a radical electoral reform, which would have increased the 
number of voters from about 1,500,000 to 4,500,000. The 
proposal failed, but, the agitation continuing, the succeeding 
ministry in 1896 carried through a more limited measure. 
The existing four electoral classes were left as they were ; Electoral 
but a fifth class was created, which was to elect 72 additional reform. 
members to Parliament. This class was to include all men of 
twenty-four years of age or older. It included, therefore, all 
those of the four other classes, members of which, conse- 



402 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 

quently, posssessed under the new system a double vote. The 
result was to make the system of representation more complex 
than ever, without giving numbers anything like their due 
weight. Thus five million and a half voters would choose 72 
members, whereas the 1,700,000 voters of the four other 
classes would choose 353 ; the class of great landed proprie- 
tors, numbering only about 5,000, would choose 85 members. 
Obviously, such a system would not satisfy the growing 
demand for a democratic suffrage. It was a mere temporary 
expedient. 
Universal The agitation for universal suffrage continued to increase 

suffrage. during the next decade, and was finally successful. By 
the law of January 26, 1907, all men in Austria over twenty- 
four were given the right to vote, and the class system was 
abolished. The most striking result of the first elections 
on this popular basis (May 1907) was the return of 87 
Socialists, who polled 1,041,948 votes, nearly a third of those 
cast. This party had previously had only about a dozen 
representatives. The race parties, such as the Young Czechs, 
lost heavily. Whether this means that the period of extreme 
racial rivalry is over and the struggle of social classes is 
to be the feature of the future, the future only will show. 

THE KINGDOM OF HUNGARY SINCE 1867 

Hungary, a country larger than Austria, larger than 
Great Britain, found her historic individuality definitely 
recognized and guaranteed by the Compromise of 1867. 
She had successfully resisted all attempts to merge her with 
the other countries subject to the House of Hapsburg. She 
is an independent kingdom under the crown of St. Stephen. 
The sole official language is Magyar, which is neither Slavic 
nor Teutonic, but Turanian in origin. 

The political history of Hungary since the Compromise 
has been much more simple than that of Austria. Race and 
language questions have been fundamental, but they have 
been decided in a summary manner. The ruling race in 



THE POLICY OF THE MAGYARS 403 

1867 was the Magyar, and it has remained the ruling race. The 
Though numerically in the minority in 1867, comprising Magyars, 
only about six million out of fifteen million, they were 
a strong race, accustomed to rule and determined to rule. 
The majority of the population, on the other hand, was split 
up into several races, consisted mostly of peasants, and had 
no political training, and no able leadership. Only In Croatia 
was there a Slavic people, with separate institutions and a The 
strong indlviduahty. The Magyars recognized this fact, Croatians. 
having learned a useful lesson from the failure of 1849, and 
concluded with Croatia in 1868 a compromise very similar 
to the one they had themselves concluded with Austria in the 
year preceding. In regard to all the other races, the dom- 
inant people resolved to Magyarize them early and thor- The policy 

oughly, a policy it has since steadily persisted in. The Mag- ? . ^^^^" 

1 . . 1 /» 1 • ization. 

yars have msisted upon the use of the Magyar tongue m 

public offices, courts, schools, and in the railway service — 
wherever, in fact, it has been possible. They have refused to 
make any concessions to the various peoples, and have, indeed, 
tried to stamp out their peculiarities. Besides pursuing this 
policy of vigorous amalgamation, they have developed the 
country economically. The Government has taken over the 
great railways, has made them productive, and has used them 
to further this process of Magyarization by encouraging the 
country people to come into the cities, where the Magyar 
influence is strongest. They have steadily supported the 
Compromise of 1867, by which they have greatly profited. 
They have reduced the authority of ecclesiastics In the 
state by establishing civil marriage, and the registration of 
births, deaths, and marriages by state authorities, rather 
than by the clergy. 

But Hungary has not yet been Magyarized. Race ques- Race 
tlons are still important. The Croatians wish larger in- l^^stions. 
dependence than they now have. There are powerful parties 
among the Roumanians in Transylvania, which desire sepa- 
ration from Hungary and incorporation In the Kingdom of 



404 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY SINCE 1849 



struggle 
over the 
question 
of language. 



Territorial 
gains and 
losses. 



Roumania to the east. And many of the Slavs in the 
south desire annexation to the Kingdom of Servia. 

Moreover, in recent years a party has arisen among the 
Magyars themselves, under the leadership of Francis Kos- 
suth, son of Louis Kossuth of 1848, which is opposed to 
the Compromise of 1867, and wishes to have Hungary more 
independent than she is. This party demands that Hungary 
shall have her own diplomatic corps, shall control her rela- 
tions with foreign countries independently of Austria, and 
shall possess the right to have her own tariff. Particularly 
does it demand the use of Magyar in the Hungarian part 
of the army of the dual monarchy — a demand pressed pas- 
sionately, but resisted thus far with unshakable firmness 
by the Emperor, Francis Joseph, who considers that the 
safety of the state is dependent upon having one language 
in use in the army, that there may not be confusion and 
disaster on the battlefield. Scenes of great violence have 
occurred over this question, both in Parliament and outside of 
it, but the Emperor has not yielded. Government was brought 
to a deadlock, and, indeed, for several years the Ausgleich 
could not be renewed, save by the arbitrary act of the 
Emperor, for a year at a time. Francis Joseph finally threat- 
ened, if forced to concede the recognition of the Hungarian 
language, to couple with it the introduction of universal 
suffrage into Hungary, for which there is a growing popular 
demand. This the Magyars do not wish, fearing that it will 
rob them of their dominant position by giving a powerful 
weapon to the politically inferior but more numerous races, 
and that they will, therefore, ultimately be submerged by the 
Slavs about them. Less than twenty-five per cent, of the 
adult male population of Hungary at present possess the 
vote. 

The House of Hapsburg has lost since 1815 the rich 
Lombardo- Venetian kingdom (1859-66). It has gained, 
however, Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a result of the Russo- 
Turkish war of 1877 these Turkish provinces were handed 



ANNEXATION OF BALKAN PROVINCES 405 

over by the Congress of Berlin of 1878 to Austria-Hungary 
to " occupy " and " administer." The Magyars opposed 
the assumption of these provinces, wishing no more Slavs 
in the monarchy, but despite their opposition they were 
taken over, so strongly was the Emperor in favor of it. This 
acquisition of these Balkan countries renders Austria-Hun- 
gary a more important factor in all Balkan politics, and 
in the discussions concerning the so-called Eastern Question, 
namely, the future of European Turkey. In October 1908 
Austria-Hungary declared them formally annexed. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

England in Great Britain appeared in 1815, to the superficial ob- 
1815. server, in a brilliant light. She had persisted, when others 

had faltered, in her bitter hostility to Napoleon. She had 
been the soul of the coalitions, and the crowning victory 
of Waterloo seemed to place her at the very head of the 
nations of Europe. Her energy and her wealth seemed to 
be unbounded. Her population had been only 14,000,000 
at the beginning of the great war ; at the end it was 19,000,- 
000. Her debt, it is true, had increased with appalling 
rapidity. Over a billion dollars in 1792, it was over four 
billion in 1815.' The annual interest charge amounted 
to over 150,000,000 dollars. Her expenditures during 
those years exceeded seven billion dollars. But while her 
debt and the yearly expenditures grew at an unprecedented 
rate, the wealth of the country grew more rapidly, and the 
burden of the state was more easily borne than ever. For 
the period had been one of extraordinary material develop- 
ment. The growth of her industry at home and her com- 
merce abroad had made her easily the first industrial and 
the first commercial power in the world. This industrial 
and commercial supremacy, fully revealed during the Na- 
poleonic wars and the period just succeeding, rested upon 
a series of remarkable inventions and discoveries made by 
Englishmen in the latter part of the eighteenth century, 
inventions so momentous, so far reaching in their results, 
that they effected what has been justly called the Industrial 
Kevolution. Revolution. This transformation and development of in- 

iDebt in 1792, £239,650,000; in 1815, £861,000,000. 

406 



The 
Industrial 



THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 407 

dustry has brought with it a complete change in the material 
conditions of life. The change is most striking in the 
domain of manufacture. Previously nearly everything was 
made by hand. Now a succession of English inventors — 
Hargreaves, Arkwright, Crompton, Cartwright — invented 
machines which completely altered the methods of production 
in the two basic industries of England, the manufacture of 
cotton and woolen goods. These machines could produce 
more in a given time than many hand laborers could do. The 
machine was substituted for the hand of man, as the chief 
feature in production. But there was a limit to which, under 
existing conditions, machine industry could be developed. 
That limit was determined by the amount of motive force 
available for running the machines, usually too large and 
heavy to be operated by hand. The only motive force then A new 

used, in addition to that of men and animals, was that of the "^o"^^ 

force, 
wind and falling water, exploited by windmills and water- 
wheels. But such force was precarious, and not easily 
controlled. The wind might be too high, or there might 
be no wind. The river might do damage by floods, or 
might run dry. Industry needed a new motive force, limit- 
less in quantity and capable of regulation. This it found 
in steam. For a long time the expansive power of steam 
had attracted attention, and there had been some speculation 
during the last hundred years as to the possibility of using it. 
A blacksmith, Newcomen, had made a tolerable steam en- 
gine in 1705, which could be used in pumping water, and 
was so used in many mines during the century. But it was 
James Watt, a mathematical instrument maker, who con- 
structed the first efficient and economical steam engine. 
Applying for his first patents in 1769, he continued to 
study the problem and improve the engine until his death The steam 
in 1819. From about 1781 steam engines began to be ^"S^^^- 
used in manufacturing, especially in cotton and woolen fac- 
tories. The invention of Watt had supplied the world with 
a new motive force of incalculable effectiveness. 



408 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



The 

industrial 
primacy of 
Great 
Britain. 



Advantages 

derived 

from the 

Hevolu- 

tionary 

and 

Napoleonic 

wars. 



These inventions and processes were for a while monopo- 
lized by Great Britain, for it was not until after the down- 
fall of Napoleon that they came into general use on the 
Continent. Manufacturing on a large scale, she was able 
to outstrip all possible rivals. She first developed the so- 
called factory system, and first utilized its advantages. 
These inventors, says an historian of modern England, 
" did more for the cause of mankind than even Wellington. 
Their lives had more influence on their country's future than 
the career of the great general. His victories secured his 
country peace for rather more than a generation. Their 
inventions gave Great Britain a commercial supremacy which 
neither war nor foreign competition has yet destroyed." ^ 
*' It is our improved steam engine," wrote Francis Jeif rey in 
the Edinburgh Review in 1819, " that has fought the battles 
of Europe, and exalted and sustained, through the late tre- 
mendous contest, the political greatness of our land. It is 
the same great power which enables us now to pay the interest 
of our debt, and to maintain the arduous struggle in which 
we are still engaged with the skill and capital of countries less 
oppressed with taxation." ^ 

But England profited not only from the genius of her 
inventors. The long war itself had greatly contributed to 
her commercial expansion. England had not been invaded; 
her industries had not been injured, their activity interrupted 
or rendered precarious, as had been the case in all the coun- 
tries of the Continent. She prospered both because she 
was unmolested and because they were molested, so that they 
were forced to rely upon her for many things which in normal 
times they would have manufactured for themselves. The 
war, too, had given her the command of the seas. The 
carrying trade of the world was almost entirely hers. 



* Walpole's History of England since 1815, I, GQ', on the whole subject 
of this series of inventions and the expansion of industry see Wal- 
pole, I, 44-67. 

* Quoted by Cheyney, Readings in English History, 614-615. 



THE RENOWN OF PARLIAMENT 409 

The material development of England filled other nations 
with envy. Her empire also was commanding in its range 
and universality. As one after another of the countries 
of Europe became the enemy of Britain, she attacked its 
colonies. Thus at the close of the long war she had en- 
riched herself with valuable possessions, hitherto belonging 
to France and Holland.' 

The proud position that England held was ascribed, in The renown 
the general opinion of Europe, to the excellence of her °^ Parlia- 
government. This government enjoyed a great reputa- 
tion on the Continent. It had remained erect throughout 
a period when other governments, one after another, had 
collapsed. It had followed a uniform, persistent policy 
from the beginning to the end, with a single slight interrup- 
tion, while the policy of other nations had veered and 
changed, and changed and veered again. It seemed that 
there must be some peculiar merit in a system that remained 
immutable in a world of change. Europeans heard of 
England as a land of freedom, of representative government, 
of local self-government. The renown of her Parliament 
had filled the world. It was known that her Parliament 
was her real ruler, that though the king reigned he did not 
govern, that the real executive was the ministry of the hour, 
that ministries rose and fell according to the will of Parlia- 
ment. The fact that England was so successful under this 
parliamentary and cabinet system of government, which was 
supposed to be the mouthpiece of the English people, gave 
great impetus to the demand for similar institutions on the 
Continent. England was the model to which Liberals and 
reformers everywhere were prone to point. 

Yet on examination it was seen that this structure was 
far from fair, that it was honeycombed with abuses, marked j-j^^j^j^^ ^ 
by glaring discriminations between social classes, that Eng- land of the 
land was a land of privilege, a land of the old regime, that Old Eegime. 

' On general material condition of Great Britain in 1815, Walpole, I, 
22-113. 



410 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

her institutions required radical change to bring them into 
proper adjustment with the new age and its ideas. While 
the French across the Channel had, by supreme and violent 
exertions, asserted that the modern state must rest upon 
the principle of equality, and had, in order to give that 
principle definite lodgment in the facts of the national life, 
reduced the aristocracy and humbled the church, in England 
the ruling class maintained its position unshaken. England 
remained a land of the old regime until 1832, forty years 
after the great transformation in France. 
Commanding Power rested with the aristocracy, composed of the no- 
posi ion bility and the gentry. This class largely controlled local 
government and local taxation. The " local self-govern- 
ment " of England, so much praised and idealized abroad, 
as if it were government of the people by the people, did 
not exist. In the counties the country nobility filled the 
most important offices in the local governing boards and 
in the militia. Smaller offices were occupied by its depend- 
ents. In the boroughs, too, its influence was generally de- 
cisive with the close corporations which controlled most of 
them. Its power was glaringly apparent at the top, in 
Parliament. The House of Lords was composed almost 
exclusively of large landed proprietors. This was the in- 
The House expugnable bulwark of the prevailing social class. But the 
of Commons. House of Commons was also another stronghold hardly 
less secure. This body, supposed, as its name shows, 
to be representative of the commoners of England, con- 
spicuously belied its name. Its composition was so extraor- 
dinary that it merits full description, particularly as the 
great reform movement of the next generation concerned it 
primarily, its thorough alteration being correctly felt to be 
the condition absolutely precedent to all other reforms. 
The system The House of Commons in 1815 consisted of 658 mem- 
of represen- ^^^^ . ^gg ^f ^Yiese were returned by England, 100 by Ire- 
tation. 1 

land, 45 by Scotland, 24 by Wales. There were three 

kinds of constituencies — the counties, the boroughs, and the 



THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 411 

universities. In England each county had two members, 
and nearly all of the boroughs had two each, though a few- 
had but one. Representation had no relation to the size 
of the population in either case. A large county and a 
small county, a large borough and a small borough, had 
the same number of members. In times past the king had 
possessed the right to summon this town and that to send 
up two burgesses to London. Once given that right it 
usually retained it. If a new town should grow up, the 
monarch might give it the right, but he was not oblrged 
to. Since 1625 only two new boroughs had been created. 
Thus the constitution of the House of Commons had 
become stereotyped at a time when population waS in- 
creasing and was also shifting greatly from old centers 
to new. An increasing inequality in the representation 
was a feature of the political system. Thus the county 
and borough representation of the ten southern counties of 
England was 237, and of the thirty others only 252; yet 
the latter had a population nearly three times as large 
as the former. All Scotland returned only 45 members, 
while the single English county of Cornwall (including its 
boroughs, of course) returned 44. Yet the population 
of Scotland was eight times as large as that of Corn- 
wall.^ 

The suffrage in the counties was uniform, and was enjoyed The connty 
by those who possessed land yielding them an income of forty 
shillings a year. But as this worked out it gave a very 
restricted suffrage, for England was the land of large estates, 
and the tendency toward the absorption of small estates 
in large ones was steadily increasing. The small farmer, 
holding his land in his own right, who was so common in 
France, had become almost universally in England a mere 
tenant of a large landholder. Accurate statistics are lack- 

^ These numbers include not only the county representatives proper 
but also the representatives of the boroughs located in the respective 
counties. 



412 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

ing, but Gneist estimates that at least four-fifths of the 
cultivable land of the United Kingdom belonged to not 
more than 7,000 of the nobility and gentry. The county 
voters, then, were chiefly the men who had large country 
estates, and not the farmers and peasantry who tilled them. 
The county representation was consequently a stronghold 
of the aristocracy. Counties in which there were so few 
voters could often be easily controlled by the wealthy land- 
owners. Indeed, in many counties the election of the land- 
owners' nominee was accepted as so much a matter of course 
that there were no opposing candidates. In at least three 
counties there had been no contest for over a hundred years. 
Scotland. j^ Scotch counties the condition was even worse. There 

the suffrage was not determined by ownership of land, but 
by the possession of a so-called " superiority," or direct 
grant from the crown, producing at least 400 pounds a 
year. The result was that there were not three thousand 
county voters in all Scotland ; yet the population of Scot- 
land was nearly two million. Fife had 240 voters, Crom- 
arty 9. In the county of Roxburgh in 1831 the result 
of the election was a "great majority" of 40 to 19. Yet 
that county had a population of more than 40,000. The 
climax was reached in Bute, where there were 21 voters out 
of a population of 14,000, only one of whom lived in the 
county. On a certain occasion only one voter attended 
the election meeting of that county. He constituted him- 
self chairman, nominated himself, called the list of voters, 
and declared himself returned to Parliament. 
The suffrage Such was the situation in the counties of Great Britain, 
m boroughs, ^yi^j^j^ returned 186 members to the House of Commons. 
But more important were the boroughs, which returned 467 
members.^ In the counties the suffrage was uniform; in 
the boroughs, on the other hand, there was a bewildering 
variety in the methods whereby the right to vote was se- 
cured. In the boroughs, too, the influence of the landowning 

^ The universities returned 5 members. 



BOROUGH REPRESENTATION 413 

and wealthy class was even greater and more decisive than 
in the counties. The boroughs were of several kinds or Nomination 
types — nomination boroughs, rotten or close boroughs, bor- boronglis. 
oughs in which there was a considerable body of voters, 
boroughs in which the suffrage was almost democratic. It 
was the existence of the first two classes that contributed 
the most to the popular demand for the reform of the 
House. In the nomination boroughs, the right to choose 
the two burgesses was completely in the hands of the patron. 
Such places might have lost all their inhabitants, yet repre- 
sentation, being an attribute of geographical areas rather 
than of population, these places were still entitled to their 
two members. Thus Corfe Castle was a ruin, Old Sarura 
a green mound, Gatton was part of a park, while Dun- 
wich had long been submerged beneath the sea, yet these 
places, entirely without inhabitants, still had two mem- 
bers each in the House, because it had been so decided 
centuries before, when they did have a population, and 
because the English Parliament took no account of changes. 
Thus the owner of the ruined wall, or the green mound, or 
this particular portion of the bottom of the sea, had the 
right of nomination. 

In the rotten or close boroughs the members were elected Rotten 
by the corporation, that is, by the mayor and aldermen, ''°^<^"S s. 
or the suffrage was in the hands of voters, who, however, 
were so few, from a dozen to fifty in many cases, and 
generally so poor that the patron could easily influence 
them by bribery or intimidation to choose his candidates. 
Elections in such cases were a mere matter of form. Wal- 
pole states that in 1793 245 members were notoriously 
returned by the influence of 128 peers. Thus peers, them- 
selves sitting in the House of Lords, had representatives 
sitting in the other House. Lord Lonsdale thus returned 
nine members, and was known as " premier's cat-o'-nine- 
tails." Others returned six, five, four apiece. Some would 

^ Ninety members represented places of less than 50 voters each. 



414! ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Unrepre- 
sented 
cities. 



Bribery. 



sell their appointments to the highest bidder, and a common 
price was 10,000 pounds for two seats for a single parlia- 
ment. Borough-mongering was common.^ It was stated 
in 1817 that seats were bought and sold like tickets to the 
opera. Thus at the period at which this history opens 
a considerable majority of the members of the House of 
Commons was returned through the influence of a small 
body of patrons. These were noblemen, or wealthy land- 
owners, who aspired to become noblemen and chose this 
method of acquiring political power, that thus they might 
in the end be raised to the peerage. 

In the third class of boroughs, those with a fairly large 
electorate, there was much bribery, while the fourth class 
of practically democratic boroughs was very small. On 
the other hand, there were large industrial cities with no 
representation at all, such as Manchester, with a popula- 
tion of 140,000, Birmingham with 100,000, Leeds with 
75,000, Sheffield with about 70,000.^ 

Bribery, as has been said, was customary. The polls 
were kept open for fifteen days. Where there were contests 
the expenses were borne by the candidates. These were 
sometimes enormous. A case is on record in which the two 
candidates spent 200,000 pounds in a single election. Rich 
men were willing to make these vast expenditures. For once 
in Parliament they were on the road to political power and 
social eminence. They or their sons might enter the peerage. 



^ Some of the most honorable and useful members bought their seats 
as the only way of getting into Parliament on an independent basis, 
though they utterly detested the system. See the case of Romilly. 
Cheyney, Readings in English History, pp. 644-646. 

' The salient fact about the suffrage in boroughs before 1832 is that 
it varied greatly from place to place. Molesworth considers the follow- 
ing a tolerably complete list of these qualifications: "House-holders, 
resident house-holders, house-holders paying scot and lot: inhabitants, 
resident inhabitants, inhabitants paying scot and lot: burgesses, capital 
burgesses, burgage-holders ; freeholders, freemen, resident freemen; cor- 
porations, potwallopers, payers of poor rates." Molesworth, History of 
England, I, 66 note. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 415 

and numerous sinecures might fall in the direction of the 
family. For this reason men who were making their fortunes 
in industry sought to enter the class of landed proprietors 
by purchasing large estates. Thus the established order 
gained additional support in the ambition of the newly aris- 
ing moneyed class. Well might the younger Pitt exclaim: 
" This House is not the representation of the people of 
Great Britain; it is the representation of nominal boroughs, 
of ruined and exterminated towns, of noble families, of 
wealthy individuals, of foreign potentates." The govern- 
ment of England was not representative, but was oligarchical. 

Closely identified with the State, and, like the State, thor- The 
oughly permeated with the principle of special privileges, ^Established 
was another body, the Church of England. Though there 
was absolute religious liberty in Great Britain, though men 
might worship as they saw fit, the position of the Anglican 
Church was one greatly favored. Only members of that 
church possessed any real political power. No Catholic 
could be a member of Parliament, or hold any office in the 
state or municipality. In theory Protestants who dis- 
sented from the Anglican Church were likewise excluded 
from holding office. In practice, however, they were enabled 
to, by the device of the so-called Act of Indemnity, an act 
passed each year by Parliament, pardoning them for having 
held the positions illegally during the year just past. The 
position of the Dissenter was both burdensome and humiliat- Dissenters, 
ing. He had to pay taxes for the support of the Church 
of England, though he did not belong to it. He had to 
register his place of worship with authorities of the 
Church of England. He could only be married by a clergy- 
man of that church, unless he were a Quaker or a Jew. There 
was no such thing as civil marriage, or marriage by dis- 
senting clergymen. A Roman Catholic or a Dissenter could 
not graduate from Cambridge, could not even enter Ox- 
ford, owing to the religious tests exacted, which only 
Anglicans could meet. The natural result of the supremacy 



416 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Abuses 
within the 
Church. 



The people 
neglected. 



of this religion was that those embraced it who were in- 
fluenced by self-interest, who were ambitious for political 
preferment, for social advancement, or for an Oxford or 
Cambridge education for their sons. It was " ungentleman- 
like " to be a Dissenter. 

Not only was the Chui'ch of England privileged with 
reference to other churches, but within the Church itself 
there were great inequalities. Bishops and archbishops 
received large salaries, ranging from ten to one hundred 
and fifty thousand dollars a year. These prizes went to 
the younger sons or proteges of the great families. The 
assumption was, as Sir Leslie Stephen says, that " a man 
of rank who takes orders should be rewarded for his con- 
descension." On the other hand, there were thousands of 
parish clergymen with wretchedly low salaries. The latter 
had little chance of promotion. There were pluralities 
and absenteeism in this Church, exactly as in the Roman 
Catholic Church in pre-revolutionary France. The clergy 
were eminently respectable, but eminently worldly, a social, 
if not a spiritual, force in the life of England, an interested 
bulwark of the established order. 

The great institutions of England, therefore, were con- 
trolled by the rich, and in the interest of the rich. Legis- 
lation favored the powerful, the landed nobility, and the 
rich class of manufacturers that was growing up, whose 
interests were similar. The immense mass of the people 
received scant consideration. Their education was woe- 
fully neglected. Probably three-fourths of the children of 
England did not receive the slightest instruction. Laborers 
were forbidden to combine to improve their conditions, which 
the state itself never dreamed of improving. Even their 
food was made artificially dear by tariffs on breadstuffs 
passed in the interests of the landlords. The reverse side of 
the picture of English greatness and power and prosperity 
was gloomy in the extreme. England was in need of sweep- 
ing and numerous reforms to meet the demands of modern 



CRITICS OF ENGLISH INSTITUTIONS 417 

liberalism, whether in politics, in economics, or in social 
institutions. 

The conditions just described had not escaped challenge. 
In the last quarter of the eighteenth century, two writers in 
particular, of great vigor and originality, Adam Smith and 
Jeremy Bentham, had subjected English institutions and 
policies to trenchant and damaging criticism. Adam Adam 
Smith had published in 17T6 his " Wealth of Nations," S°^^*^- 
a comprehensive condemnation of the prevalent economic 
theories and practices of Great Britain. He denounced 
protection and defended free trade, and urged liberty in 
the economic life in place of constant and minute govern- 
mental regulation. Bentham criticized government and Jeremy 
jurisprudence and morals. Aroused by Blackstone's pane- -^entliamo 
gyric of the British Constitution as the perfection of human 
wisdom, he published in 1776 a " Fragment on Govern- 
ment," in which he showed unsparingly its defects. He 
laid down in this, and in other books in later years, the 
principle that " the greatest happiness of the greatest num- 
ber is the foundation of morals and legislation " ; that 
" the end of all government is utility, or the good of the 
governed." Obviously, English government was not based 
on any such principle. Bentham applied his principle of 
utility to all the institutions of England in succession — 
the monarchy, the church, the courts, parliament — showing 
how harmful rather than useful each was. He was con- 
structive also, showing how the grievous defects could be 
remedied. 

The views of Smith and Bentham made no impression Effect of 

upon Parliament, but they gradually influenced the rising *^® French 
. ' Ml, 1 P Revolution 

generation. Ihey contributed greatly to the reforms ^^^j^ 

effected from about 1825 to 1850. They would probably England. 

have been effective much earlier had it not been for the 

French Revolution, which, working much good for France, 

worked nothing but evil for England. English conservatism 

became stiff and implacable. Liberal demands must be 



418 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Economic 
distress 
after 1815. 



resisted, because, as any one could see, they led to anarchy 
and violence and a Reign of Terror. From 1793 to 1815 
the liberal reformers of England were silenced by the odium 
attached to the deeds of their French neighbors. Salutary 
changes were delayed for a whole generation. The Tory 
party, opposed to all change, was assured of a long lease 
of power, one that lasted, indeed, until 1830. 

The demand for reform was resumed, however, after the 
final victory over Napoleon at Waterloo, and became more 
and more emphatic. It drew its main strength from the 
deep and widespread wretchedness of the people. Con- 
trary to all expectations, the peace did not bring with it 
happiness and prosperity, but rather intense suffering and 
the hatred of class and class. The reasons for this are 
not far to seek. As long as war continued England was 
the manufacturer and the common carrier of the world. 
Now that the war was over this practical monopoly was 
destroyed, the foreign market was restricted by the renewed 
activity of European manufacturers and merchants, who 
could now conduct their business in security. The export 
trade fell off rapidly. Then the English Government re- 
duced its expenditures suddenly by one-half, greatly injur- 
ing all those industries which had furnished it the materials 
of war. Thus manufacturers, losing customers at home 
and abroad, were forced, some into bankruptcy, others to 
curtail their activity, in other words, to dismiss thousands 
of workmen. And at this very moment, when laborers 
Lack of em- were being thrown out of employment or ^vere finding their 
p oymen . -^^ages reduced, their number was being increased by the 
disbandment of the militia and the reduction in the army 
and navy. The navy alone was reduced from 100,000 
men in 1815 to 33,000 in 1816. At the time when the 
number of laborers was greater than the demand, 200,000 
or more men were added to the labor market. Furthermore, 
the next few years saw a series of bad harvests. By these, 
and by the Corn Law of 1815, bread was made dearer. 



THE DEMAND FOR REFORM 419 

Add also the fact that the modern industrial or factory 
system was painfully supplanting the old system of house- 
hold industries and temporarily throwing multitudes out 
of employment, or employing them under hard, even in- 
human conditions, and it is not difficult to understand the 
widespread, desperate discontent of the mass of the popu- 
lation. A Parliament, organ of the rich minority, refused 
to help them; it even forbade them to help themselves, for 
it was a misdemeanor for workmen to combine. If they 
did, they would be sent to jail. Labor was unorganized. 

The prevalence of such conditions naturally furthered The demand 
the demand for reforms, long held in check by the war. °^ ^^ °^^™* 
Now that the war was over, the time seemed to have come 
for legislation remedial of the many abuses in English in- 
stitutions, and of the existing economic distress. But the 
ministry and Parliament saw only danger in change, and 
set themselves grimly against all concessions. The years 
from 1815 to 1820 are years of repression and alarm, as 
pronounced in England as in most of the countries of 
Europe. 

The demand for reforms came primarily from the poor William 
and disheartened masses, who possessed a remarkable leader Cobbett. 
in the person of William Cobbett, the son of an agricultural 
laborer. For some years Cobbett had published a liberal 
periodical called " The Weekly Political Register," in which 
he had opposed the Government. In 1816 he reduced the 
price of his paper from a shilling to twopence, made his 
appeal directly to the laboring class, and became their guide 
and spokesman. The effect was instantaneous. For the first 
time the lower class had an organ, cheap, moreover brilliantly 
written, for Cobbett's literary ability was such that a London 
paper, the Standard, declared that for clearness, force, and 
power of copious illustration he was unrivaled since the time 
of Swift. Cobbett was the first great popular editor, who for 
nearly thirty years, with but little interruption, expressed in 
his weekly paper the wishes and the emotions of the laboring 



4S0 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

classes. He was a great democratic leader, a powerful 
popular editor, a pugnacious and venomous opponent of 
the existing regime, a champion of the cause of parliamentary 
reform. 
Parliamen- For Cobbett persuaded the working people that they must 
tary reform, gj,^^ ^^^ ^1^^ ^.j^j^l. ^^ ^^^^ before they could get social and 

economic reforms. Parliamentary reform must have prece- 
dence. Let the people get political power, let them change 
Parliament from the organ of a narrow class into a truly 
national assembly, and then they could abolish the evils 
from which they suffered, and put useful statutes into force. 
He demanded, therefore, universal suffrage. Other lead- 
ers appeared also, and a considerable fermentation of ideas 
among the unpropertied and working classes characterized 
these years. 

Certain radicals took more active measures which aroused 
disproportionate alarm in the minds of the ministry, who 
scented a new French Revolution in every popular commo- 
tion, and were ready to go to almost any length to stamp 
out the troublesome spirit. The distress of the masses led 
Popular dis- to disturbances. Riots broke out in 1816. Farm buildings, 
turbances. barns, stacks, business premises were set on fire. Machine's 
were broken by workmen who thought them the cause of their 
woes. Obnoxious tradesmen were attacked. The ministry, 
thinking it necessary in the interests of property to make 
an example, arrested seventy-three of the wretched rioters 
of Ely, secured the condemnation to death of thirty-four 
of them, and the actual execution of five. Such was the 
reply of the British Government to the prevalent discontent. 
Similar disturbances occurred elsewhere, and were similarly 
suppressed. A political demonstration of a radical char- 
acter was held in Spa Fields in London in the same year 
(1816). The Government prosecuted the leaders for 
treason, but the jury declined to convict. Somewhat later 
when the Prince Regent was returning from Parliament, 
where he had declared that the English electoral system 



THE MASSACRE OF PETERLOO 421 

was the most perfect the world had ever seen, the people 
threw stones at his carriage, breaking one of its windows. 

The legislation occasioned by these occurrences was harshly Suspension 
repressive. No less grave a measure was passed than one sus- °^ Habeas 
pending the Habeas Corpus Act, an act which no Parliament 
in Great Britain, since that of 1817, has felt it necessary 
to suspend. An act for the suppression of seditious meet- 
ings was hardly more defensible. It was the object of this 
bill to prevent political discussion by the public. Only with 
the special permission of a magistrate could a debating club 
meet or a lecture be given or a reading room be opened. 
The ministry even declined to make any exception of lectures 
on medicine, surgery, and chemistry. Such legislation only 
the gravest necessity could justify, and such necessity did 
not exist. That it could be used to damage political oppo- 
nents of the existing ministry was soon made evident. The 
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act drove Cobbett, the 
most aggressive opponent of the ministry, into temporary 
exile. 

Two years later a more important event occurred in Man- The 
Chester. A public meeting was held in St. Peters Field, Massacre of 
August 16, 1819, for the purpose of petitioning for parlia- 
mentary reform and the redress of grievances. This meet- 
ing had been declared illegal by the authorities, yet the organ- 
izers had determined to hold it nevertheless. Fifty thousand 
men, women, and children came together accordingly to listen 
to Hunt, a popular orator. The police attempted to arrest 
Hunt and the other leaders. The crowd closed in around 
them, jeering. The magistrates apparently lost their heads. 
They ordered a body of cavalry and yeomanry to rescue 
the police. The result, however, was that the troops charged 
the crowd which was unarmed. There was a scene of fear- 
ful confusion ; several defenseless people were killed at once ; 
many more were injured. This so-called Massacre of Peter- 
loo angered the people, and in the end furthered the agita- 
tion for reform, but the Government warmly approved the 



422 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



The Six 

Acts. 



action of the magistrates and induced Parliament to 
pass the famous Six Acts or Gag Laws which represent the 
climax of this sorry reaction in England, and which strin- 
gently restricted the freedom of speech, of the press, and of 
public meeting, which had long been the boast of England. 

Such was the answer of the Tory aristocracy under Lord 
Liverpool to tlie demands of the discontented and distressed. 
No attempt on the part of the privileged classes to examine 
the grievances of the people, to seek to remove the causes 
of the universal discontent, but only harsh and repressive 
legislation that encroached gravely upon the traditional 
liberties of the Britisli people. The conquerors of Napoleon 
were easily frightened. Their policy of coercion was suc- 
cessful. The radical party was silenced. It reappeared 
ten years later, however, and contributed immensely to 
the cause of parliamentary reform which then became irre- 
sistible. 

In 1820 George III died at the age of eighty-one. He had 
for may years been insane, and the regency had been exer- 
cised by his son, who now became George IV, and who 
reigned from 1820 to 1830. 

After 1820 a change gradually came over the political 
life of England. The Tory party still retained its great 
majority in Parliament, but it showed a tendency toward 
liberalism. With returning prosperity after the resump- 
tion of specie payments in 1819, the disturbances of the last 
few years ceased, and the panic, into which the governing 
classes had been thrown by the French Revolution, passed 
away. Several of the more reactionary members of the 
ministry died or resigned, and their places were taken by 
men of a 3rounger and more liberal generation. Canning, 
Peel, and Huskisson made the Tory party an engine of 
partial reform. Under Canning, as Foreign Secretary from 
Defiance of 1822, England assumed the position that each nation is 
the Holy ^^.^^ ^^ determine its own form of government, a doctrine 
opposed to that of the Holy Alliance of the right of inter- 



George III. 



The dawn 
of an era 
of reform. 



Alliance. 



THE DAWN OF LIBERALISM 423 

vention in the affairs of other states whose acts might be 
thought to imperil the principle of monarchy. Canning freed 
England from all connection with the Holy Alliance. He 
recognized the independence of the Spanish colonies in 
America. If Spain could reconquer them she might. But 
no foreign country, declared Canning, should subdue them 
for her. " I called the New World in," he said, " to re- 
dress the balance of the Old." The main significance of 
Canning's administration of the Foreign Office is that at 
least one of the great powers with boldness and success 
defied the smug and timorous reactionary policy of the 
absolute monarchies of the Continent. Similar interven- 
tions in Portuguese and Greek affairs served the cause of 
liberalism in those countries. 

While Canning was making England's foreign policy more Economic 
liberal, Huskisson was introducing greater liberty into com- reforms, 
merce by carrying bills in 1823 altering the Navigation 
Laws, which threw restrictions about the carrying trade, 
and by reducing the duties on many articles of import. 
This was not free trade, but it was a step in that direction. 
The more strongly protected interests maintained their 
ground for a generation longer. When Huskisson began 
his reforms about 1,500 Acts of Parliament regulated the 
administration of the tariff system ; the number was now 
reduced to eleven, thus greatly simplifying that department. 

Another important reform of these years was that of the The Penal 
Penal Code. The code then prevailing was a disgrace to 
England, and placed her far behind France and other coun- 
tries. There was a crying need for reform. The punish- 
ment of death could be legally inflicted for about two hun- 
dred offenses — for picking a man's pocket, for stealing five 
shillings from a store, or forty shillings from a dwelling 
house, for stealing a fish, for injuring Westminster Bridge, 
for sending threatening letters, for making a false entry 
in a marriage register.^ 

^ Walpole, II, 140-1, footnote, gives a partial list of these offenses. 



424 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Heformed 
by Sir 
Robert Peel. 



Keligious 
inequality. 



The 

religious 
disabilities 
of Dis- 
senters. 



This code, as a matter of fact, was not enforced. It was 
shown, for instance, that in the twelve years, from 1805 to 
1817, 655 persons had been indicted for steahng five shillings 
from a shop. Of these 113 had been sentenced to death, 
but the sentence had not been carried into effect in a single 
instance. While this was an evidence that the humane 
feeling of the age condemned the law and would not enforce 
it, still the code, by its very harshness, tended to encourage 
indifference to law. Two great reformers, Romilly and 
Mackintosh, had labored for fifteen years to persuade Parlia- 
ment to alter this barbarous code, but with only disheartening 
results. But now Sir Robert Peel took up the reform, and 
proposed and carried, in 1823, the abolition of the death 
penalty in about a hundred cases. The Tory party now 
accepted proposals it had previously fiercely combatted. 
It is a curious fact that even before this more humane policy 
was adopted with reference to the misdeeds and weaknesses 
of men, a law for the prevention of cruelty to animals, the 
first of its kind, had been passed (1822). 

Another reform of these years no less significant lay in the 
direction of greater religious liberty. In 1815 there was 
in England religious freedom but not religious equality. 
People might worship as they saw fit. Nevertheless, as we 
have seen, men paid a penalty for belonging to any other 
than the established Church of England. Political priv- 
ileges were conditioned upon creed. It has been only by a 
series of acts passed in the nineteenth century that England 
has thrown open her political life to all, irrespective of 
church connections or religious beliefs or professions. The 
first step taken was the removal of the disabilities from which 
Protestant Dissenters suffered. These were imposed by the 
so-called Test and Corporation Acts. These acts, put upon 
the statute book at a time when there was grave fear of a 
violent assault upon Protestantism, had been intended to 
destroy the political power of the Catholics. As a qualifica- 
tion for holding most offices, municipal and national, the 



REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES 425 

sacrament must be received according to the rites of the 
Anglican Church, and the oaths of supremacy and allegiance 
taken. The Test Act required a declaration against transub- 
stantiation. Though these acts were designed to exclude 
Catholics, they went further and excluded as well Dissenters 
generally. Yet with singular inconsistency Dissenters were 
permitted to be members of Parliament, and thus to partici- 
pate in the making of the laws of England. For a long time, 
however, they did not vigorously object to the injustice 
and inconvenience which they suffered, inasmuch as they 
hated and feared Catholics more than they coveted political 
power, and believed that the repeal of the Test Act would 
inevitably lead to the emancipation of the Catholics, which 
they did not wish to see. Moreover, as has been already 
stated, a convenient device was made to fit their case. They 
were, as a matter of practice, pei'mitted to hold office, though 
in so doing they were lawbreakers. Then Parliament would 
pass an act of indemnity pardoning them for what they had 
done. This had for a long while been the established custom ; 
consequently the Test Act no longer operated to the exclusion 
of Dissenters from office, but was only a badge of religious 
inferiority. In 1828 the Test and Corporation Acts were Hepeal of 
repealed as being no longer in harmony with the age or *^^ "^^^^ 
with the wishes of Dissenters. Henceforth every person on corporation 
entering upon office must make a declaration " on the true Acts, 
faith of a Christian " that he would not use his authority 
in any way against the Established Church. These words 
had the effect of excluding Jews from office, thereby occa- 
sioning in the years to come a new agitation and a new reform. 
Thus the monopoly of the Church had in one particular 
been broken. The repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts 
was an act of complete justice to Protestant Nonconform- 
ists, but of only partial justice to Roman Catholics. Though Catholic 
the latter could now hold most offices they were still ex- disabilities, 
eluded from Parliament, for their exclusion from Parliament 
depended not on the Test Act but upon an act passed in 



426 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

1679, and which was still in force, requiring all members of 
Parliament to take the oath of supremacy and to make a 
declaration against transubstantiation and the adoration of 
the Virgin Mary. Thus, while after the repeal of the Test 
Act in 1828, Catholics might be appointed to municipal and 
national offices, they might not sit in either House of Parlia- 
ment. They were not upon an equality with Protestants in 
political matters, and had no share in the legislation of the 
empire. Moreover, their position was anomalous and con- 
tradictory. In Ireland all forty shilling freeholders pos- 
sessed the suffrage. Thus a large number of Catholics could 
vote for members of the House of Commons, but practically 
they could only vote for Protestants, as Protestants alone 
would subscribe to the oath and declaration required of all 
members. Nevertheless it was not illegal for Catholics to vote 
for one of their own faith and elect him. They would, of 
course, be throwing away their suffrage as such a person 
would certainly, for the reason given, not be permitted to 
take his seat. 
Catholic Catholic Emancipation, as the removal of these disabilities 

Emancipa- ^^^g called, had for forty years been a prominent question 
in English politics. Some of the great statesmen of Eng- 
land had tried to solve it favorably to Catholic claims, 
notably Pitt and Canning, but without success, owing to 
the prevalent bigotry. George III and George IV were 
violently opposed, George III declaring that he should 
reckon any man his personal enemy who should propose 
any measure of relief, and they were supported by the more 
conservative Tories. The question entered upon the acute 
stage in 1828. The Duke of Wellington was prime min- 
ister and Sir Robert Peel was the most important member 
of the cabinet. Both were opposed on principle to Catholic 
emancipation. The ministry wished to postpone all dis- 
cussion of the question. But events were just then occur- 
ring in Ireland which would have rendered further postpone- 
ment of the settlement an act of sheer madness. An agitation, 



CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION 427 

widesweeping and portentous, convulsed this long suffering 
people. A man of remarkable powers of leadership had 
arisen and had forced the crisis. Daniel O'Connell is one Daniel 
of the most extraordinary men in Irish history. A thrilling O'Connell. 
orator and a shrewd and energetic lawyer he could inflame 
vast multitudes of men, yet could lead them safely past snares 
and pitfalls. Believing that Ireland could only obtain 
justice by an overwhelming display of force he founded the 
Catholic Association to advocate Catholic claims. This 
soon became so powerful a political body as to alarm the 
Government. A law was accordingly passed in 1825 order- 
ing its dissolution. The law was from the start a dead 
letter. The Association, dissolved, immediately reappeared 
in another form. Monster meetings were held, where the 
witchery of O'Connell's oratory was displayed and his 
marvelous power of control of an excitable and injured 
people conspicuously manifested. These monster demon- 
strations were marked by no excesses. They constituted an 
indignant and resolute protest against unfair legislation. 
O'Connell now decided upon an act so bold that he believed 
it would mean the end of the agitation. A vacancy occurred 
in the parliamentary representation from the county of 
Clare. O'Connell decided to be a candidate. He was tri- O'Connell 
umphantly elected. He was a Catholic, therefore debarred ^^^<^ted to 
by the laws from membership. The electors voted for him 
despite the fact that they were throwing their votes away. 
They aimed to produce a moral effect and they succeeded. 
It was evident that O'Connell could be similarly returned 
in almost every other county in Ireland should the occasion 
occur, that the people were in earnest, and united. It was 
the fear that this was the attitude of a united people on 
the very brink of a revolt rather than any sense of the 
justice of the cause that prompted Wellington and Peel to 
bring in the famous Emancipation Bill, to force it through an 
unwilling Parliament, and to impose it upon an unwilling 
King. Wellington candidly admitted that he was driven to 



428 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Emancipa- 
tion carried. 



The 

restriction 
of the 
suffrage in 
Ireland. 



Tory- 
opposition 
to the 
reform 
of Parlia- 
ment. 



this step by fear of civil war. George IV felt, as he afterward 
said, like a person with a pistol at his breast. Like most 
persons in such a predicament he yielded (1829). Catholics 
were henceforth admitted to both Houses of Parliament, and 
with a few exceptions they might now fill any municipal and 
state office. The act established real political equality be- 
tween Catholics and Protestants. 

But at the very time that Catholics were given the right 
to sit in Parliament, they were in large majority deprived 
of the suffrage, for the property qualification for voters in 
Ireland was raised from forty shillings to two hundred. 
Thus in removing one grievance a new one was created, 
certainly an ineffective method of pacifying Ireland. One 
hundred and ninety thousand forty-shilling freeholders were 
disfranchised offhand. It is to be said, however, that this 
Tory Parliament would not have consented to Catholic 
Emancipation had it not known beforehand that this blow 
would be dealt to democracy. 

The reforms that have just been described were carried 
through by the Tory party. There was one reform, how- 
ever, more fundamental and important, which it was clear that 
that party would never concede, the reform of Parliament 
itself. The significant features of the parliamentary system 
have already been described. That they required profound 
alteration had been held by many of the Whigs for more than 
fifty years. But the Whigs had been powerless to effect 
anything, having long been in the minority. A combination 
of circumstances, however, now brought about the downfall 
of the party so long dominant, and rendered possible the 
great reform. George IV died on June 26, 1830, and was 
succeeded by his brother William IV (1830-1837). The 
death of the monarch necessitated a new election of Par- 
liament. Many of the influential Tory poKticians, indig- 
nant that Wellington and Peel had consented to the 
emancipation of the Catholics, wished to punish their leaders 
by sending up members to the Commons who would be 



INFLUENCE OF REVOLUTION OF 1830 429 

opposed to them. Wellington's foreign policy increased the 
unpopularity of the ministry. Moreover, just at this time 
the distress of the working classes was great, and they were 
demanding parliamentary reform with renewed vigor. Sud- Influence of 
denly the French Revolution of 1830 occurred. It exerted 
a great influence in England. To the distressed and dis- of jsso. 
contented it was an encouragement to further activity. 
But its influence upon the well-to-do middle class was more 
important as it proved that great changes could be 
effected without bringing social anarchy in their train. 
Thus the specter of revolution that had haunted the imag- 
ination of the solid, conservative class of Englishmen was 
finally laid by a revolution both reasonably orderly and most 
salutary. This class was no longer unwilling to co-operate 
with the working people. It now took up with energy the 
demand for reform. 

The elections of 1830, held under such circumstances, 
resulted in a Tory loss of fifty members in the Commons. 
Though that party still had a majority it was not likely 
to last long, as many Tories were opposed to Wellington. 
Parliament met in November 1830, and the question of re- 
form was immediately introduced. The Duke of Wellington The Buke 

showed his position by a remarkable eulogy of the English °^ Wellmg- 

ton on 
Parliament as one which " answered all the good purposes ygfoj^^ 

of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legisla- 
ture had ever answered, in any country whatever," that it 
possessed and deservedly possessed " the full and entire con- 
fidence of the country." He would go still further and say 
" that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him 
the duty of forming a legislature for any country — and 
particularly for a country like thisj in possession of great 
property of various descriptions — he did not mean to assert 
that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, 
for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such ex- 
cellence at once, but his great endeavor would be to form 
some description of legislature which would produce the same 



430 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Fall of the 

Tory 

ministry. 



The First 

Reform 

Bill. 



Provisions. 



results." Under these circumstances he would himself never 
bring forward any measure changing that system, but he 
" should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when 
proposed by others." ^ 

The result of this speech, which was entirely sincere but 
seemed the very abdication of the intellect, was to arouse such 
widespread indignation that the Wellington ministry was 
shortly swept from office, and the Whigs came in. Thus 
was broken the control the Tory party had exercised with 
one slight interruption for forty-six years. 

Earl Grey, who for forty years had demanded parlia- 
mentary reform, now became prime minister. A ministry 
was formed with ease, and included many able men, Durham, 
Russell, Brougham, Palmerston, Stanley, Melbourne, and on 
March 1, 1831, a Reform Bill was introduced in the House 
of Commons by Lord John Russell. It aimed to ejffect a 
redistribution of seats on a more equitable plan, and the 
establishment of a uniform franchise for boroughs in place 
of the great and absurd variety of franchises then existing. 
The redistribution of seats was based on two principles, the 
withdrawal of the right of representation from small, de- 
cayed boroughs, and its bestowal upon large and wealthy 
towns hitherto without it. 

Accordingly the bill proposed to deprive all boroughs 
having a population of less than 2,000 of their separate 
representation in Parliament; to deprive all boroughs of less 
than 4,000 inhabitants of one of their two members. It 
was estimated that 110 boroughs would be affected, and that 
168 seats would be abolished.^ The ministry proposed that 
these should be given to the counties and the great unrepre- 



* Quoted in May, Const, Hist, of Eng., I, 331-332. Kendall, Source 
Book of English History, No. 129. 

" The list read by Lord John Russell of the boroughs which it was 
proposed wholly or partially to disfranchise, with the number of voters 
and " the prevailing influence " of each, that is the landowner, who had 
practical control, may be found in Molesworth, Hist, of Eng., I, 70-73; 
also, in part, in Cheyney, Readings in English History, 686-688. 



INTRODUCTION OF REFORM BILL 431 

sented boroughs. The bill amazed the House by its thor- 
oughgoing character and encouraged the reformers. Neither 
side had expected so sweeping a change. The introduction 
of the bill precipitated a remarkable parliamentary discus- 
sion, which continued with some intervals for over fifteen 
months, from March 1, 1831, to June 5, 1832. 

Lord John Russell in his introduction of the measure, Lord Johu 
after stating that the theory of the British Constitution Russell's 
was no taxation without representation, and after showing 
that in former times Parliament had been truly representa- 
tive, said that it was no longer so. " A stranger who was 
told that this country is unparalleled in wealth and industry, 
and more civilized and more enlightened than any country 
was before it — that it is a country that prides itself on its 
freedom, and that once in every seven years it elects repre- 
sentatives from its population to act as the guardians and 
preservers of that freedom — would be anxious and curious 
to see how that representation is formed, and how the people 
choose their representatives, to whose faith and guardian- 
ship they entrust their free and liberal institutions. Such 
a person would be very much astonished if he were taken to 
a ruined mound and told that that mound sent two repre- 
sentatives to Parliament; if he were taken to a stone wall 
and told that three niches in it sent two representatives to 
Parliament ; if he were taken to a park where no houses were 
to be seen, and told that that park sent two representatives 
to Parliament. But if he were told all this, and were aston- 
ished at hearing it, he would be still more astonished if he 
were to see large and opulent towns, full of enterprise and 
industry and intelligence, containing vast magazines of every 
species of manufactures, and were then told that these towns 
sent no representatives to Parliament." 

Lord John Russell estimated that the electorate would be 
enlarged by about a half a million additional voters by this 
measure, for it proposed the extension of the suffrage as 
well as the redistribution of seats. 



432 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Sir Robert The first man who arose to oppose the bill was the repre- 

^^ \^ ^ sentative of the University of Oxford, Sir Robert Infflis, 

speech . . » ' 

who represented the opinions and prejudices of the country 

gentlemen so vitally affected by the measure. He denied 
flatly that the population of a town had ever had anything 
to do with its representation or that representation and 
taxation were in any way connected in the British Constitu- 
tion. " Can the noble lord show that any town or borough, 
has been called into parliamentary existence because it was 
large or populous, or excluded from it because it was small? 
The noble lord has tried to make much of the instance of 
Old Sarura. In one and the same year, the 23rd Edward I, 
a writ was issued to both Old and New Sarum, and in neither 
case was it conferred on account of population or taxation. 
On the contrary, I believe it was given, in the first instance, 
to oblige some Earl of Salisbury by putting his friends into 
the House. And in an account of the borough it was stated 
that it had lately been purchased by Mr. Pitt, the possessor 
of the celebrated diamond of that name, who has attained 
an hereditary seat in the House of Commons as much as 
the Earl of Arundel possessed one in the House of Peers 
by being the owner of Arundel Castle. How then can it be 
said that, according to the constitution of the country noble- 
men are not to be represented and their interests regarded 
in this House. ... It is in vain after this to talk of the 
purity of representation in former times. I defy the noble 
Representa- lord to point out at any time when the representation was 
better than it is at present. I say, therefore, that what is 
proposed is not restorative. The House and the country 
may judge what it is, but I will state in one word that it is 
Revolution, a revolution that will overturn all the natural 
influence of rank and property." Sir Robert proceeded to 
show that some of the greatest men in parliamentary annals 
had entered the House as representatives of these nomination 
and close boroughs, the elder Pitt, who sat indeed for this 
very Old Sarum, which was to be embalmed as a classic in 



tion never 
better. 



DEBATES ON REFORM BILL 433 

these debates, the younger Pitt, Burke, Canning, Fox, that 
thus they had a chance to show their talents and were later 
chosen the representatives of large towns. But no such 
towns would ever have chosen them had they not previously 
had this opportunity to prove their ability. " It is only by 
this means that young men who are unconnected by birth 
or residence with large towns can ever hope to enter this 
House unless they are cursed — I will call it cursed — with 
that talent of mob oratory which is used for the purpose 
of influencing the lowest and most debasing passions of the 
people." 

Hunt, one of the radical leaders, former hero of the field Hunt's 
of Peterloo, and now a member of the House, took part in 
the debate. "How is this House constituted.?" he asked, 
"How are many honorable members elected.'' Look at the 
borough of Ilchester and the boroughs of Lancashire and 
Cornwall, and see what classes of men return members to this 
House. I will tell the House a fact which has come to my 
knowledge, and which bears on that particular point. In 
the borough of Ilchester . . . many of the voters are 
of the most degraded and lowest class, who can neither 
read nor write, and who always take care to contract debts 
to the amount of £35 previous to an election, because they 
know that those debts will be liquidated for them. Is that, 
then, the class of men which the House is told represents the 
property of the country.? I am one who thinks that this 
House ought to be what it professes to be — the Commons 
House of Parliament, representing the feelings and interest 
of all the common people of England." 

Another member. Sir C. Wetherell, denounced the pro- 
posed loss of their positions by 168 members as " corpora- 
tion robbery," as a new Pride's purge, as an imitation of the 
illegalities of the Cromwellian period, as republican in prin- 
ciple, " destructive of all property, of all right, of all 
privilege." 

Sir Robert Peel pointed out that the close boroughs not 



434 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 



Sir Eobert 

Peel's 

criticism. 



Macaulay 
on the 
Bill. 



only brought out young talent that otherwise could get no 
opportunity to show itself, but that they furnished refuges 
for distinguished members, who by some caprice of fortune 
had lost their hold upon their constituencies — and that thus 
these men could continue in the service of the nation. 
" During 150 years the constitution in its present form has 
been in force; and I would ask any man who hears me to 
declare whether the experience of history has produced any 
form of government so calculated to promote the happiness 
and secure the rights and liberties of a free and enlightened 
people." Stanley, later Lord Derby, replying to the con- 
tention that the nomination boroughs opened an opportunity 
to very able men to enter Parliament who might not find any 
other way, said, " Whatever advantage might be derived 
from this mode of admission would be more than balanced 
by this disadvantage — that the class of persons thus intro- 
duced would, whatever may be their talents and acquire- 
ments, not be looked upon by the people as representatives." 

Macaulay delivered a speech on the second day of the 
debate that made his reputation as one of the foremost 
orators of the House. Replying to Sir Robert Inglis he said, 
" My honorable friend . . . challenges us to show that 
the constitution was ever better than it is. Sir, we are 
legislators, not antiquaries. The question for us is, not 
whether the constitution was better formerly, but whether 
we can make it better now? " Shall " a hundred drunken 
potwallopers in one place, or the owner of a ruined hovel 
in another," be invested with powers " which are withheld 
from cities renowned to the furthest ends of the earth for 
the marvels of their wealth and of their industry.''" "But 
these great cities, says my honorable friend . . . are 
virtually, though not directly, represented. Are not the 
wishes of Manchester, he asks, as much consulted as those 
of any town which sends members to Parliament.? Now, 
Sir, I do not understand how a power which is salutary 
when exercised virtually can be noxious when exercised 



DEFEAT OF THE REFORM BILL 435 

directly. If the wishes of Manchester have as much weight 
with us as they would have under a system which should 
give representatives to Manchester, how can there be any 
danger in giving representatives to Manchester? " Refer- 
ring to the utility of the close boroughs as affording careers 
to men of talent he said that " we must judge of the form 
of government by its general tendency, not by happy acci- 
dents," and that if " there were a law that the hundred tallest 
men in England should be members of Parliament, there would 
probably be some able men among those who would come 
into the House by virtue of this law." 

Thus the debate went on, an unusual number of members Ministry 
participating. But the bill did not have long to live. The defeated, 
Opposition was persistent, and on April 19th the ministry j- i j 
was defeated on an amendment. It resolved to appeal to the 
people. Parliament was dissolved and a new election 
ordered. This election took place in the summer of 1831 
amid the greatest excitement and was one of the most momen- 
tous of the century. From one end of the land to the other 
the cry was, " The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the 
bill." There was some violence and intimidation of voters, 
and bribery on a large scale was practised on both sides. 
The question put the candidates was, " Will you support the 
bill or will you oppose it? " The result of the election was an 
overwhelming victory for the reformers. 

On June 24, 1831, Lord John Russell introduced the Second 
second Reform Bill, which was practically the same as the -pn^^™ 
first. The Opposition did not yield, but fought it inch by 
inch. They tried to wear out the ministry by making 
dilatory motions and innumerable speeches which necessarily 
consisted of mere repetition. In the course of two weeks 
Sir Robert Peel spoke forty-eight times, Croker fifty-seven 
times, Wetherell fifty-eight times. However, the bill was 
finally passed, September 22nd, by a majority of 106. It 
was then sent up to the House of Lords where it was quickly House of 
killed (October 8, 1831). Lords. 



Bill. 



436 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

It was the Lords who chiefly profited by the existing system 
of nomination and rotten boroughs, and they were enraged 
at the proposal to end it. They were determined not to lose 
the power it gave them. 

The defeat of the bill by the Upper House caused great 
indignation throughout the country. Apparently the Lords 
were simply greedy of their privileges. Again riots broke 
out in London and other towns, expressive of the popular 
feeling. Newspapers appeared in mourning. Bells were 
tolled. Threats of personal violence to the Lords were made, 
and in certain instances carried out. Troops were called 
out in some places. England, it was widely felt, was verg- 
ing toward a civil war. 
Third Parliament was now prorogued. It reassembled December 

6th, and on the 12th, Lord John Russell rose again and in- 
troduced his third Reform Bill. Again the same tiresome 
tactics of the Opposition. But the bill finally passed the 
House of Commons, March 23, 1832, by a majority of 116. 

Again the bill was before the Lords, who showed the same 
disposition to defeat it as before. The situation seemed 
hopeless. Twice the Commons had passed the bill with the 
manifest and express approval of the people. Were they 
to be foiled by a chamber based on hereditary privilege? 
Riots, monster demonstrations, acrimonious and bitter de- 
nunciation, showed once more the temper of the people. 
There was only one way in which the measure could be 
carried. The King might create enough peers to give its 
supporters a majority in the House of Lords. This, how- 
ever, William IV at first refused to do. The Grey ministry 
consequently resigned. The King appealed to the Duke 
of Wellington to form a ministry. The Duke tried but 
failed. The King then gave way, recalled Earl Grey to 
power and signed a paper stating, " The King grants per- 
mission to Earl Grey and to his Chancellor, Lord Brougham, 
to create such a number of peers as will be sufficient to 
insure the passing of the Reform Bill." The peers were 



PROVISIONS OF THE REFORM BILL 43T 

never created. The threat sufficed. The bill passed the The Bill 
Lords, June 4, 1832, about 100 of its opponents absenting ^^^^^ 
themselves from the House. It was signed and became a 
law. 

The bill had undergone some changes during its passage. 
In its final form it provided that fifty-six nomination or 
close boroughs with a population of less than 2,000 should 
lose their representation entirely; that thirty-two others, 
with a population of less than 4,000 should lose one seat 
each. The seats thus obtained were redistributed as fol- Eedistribu- 
lows : twenty-two large towns were given two members each ; ^°^ ° 
twenty others were given one each, and the larger counties 
were given additional members, sixty-five in all. Scotland 
and Ireland were by companion bills given increased repre- 
sentation. One hundred and forty-three seats were thus re- 
distributed. There was no attempt to make equal electoral 
districts, but only to remove more flagrant abuses. Con- 
stituencies still varied greatly in population. The total 
membership of the House was not altered but remained 658. 

The Reform Bill also altered and widened the suffrage. The 
Previously the county franchise had depended entirely upon ^° ^. 
the ownership of land; that is, was limited to those who 
owned outright land of an annual value of forty shillings, 
the forty-shilling freeholders. The county suffrage was 
now extended to include also copyholders and leaseholders, 
i. e., farmers and tenants of land whose tenure was for sixty 
years, and of the annual value of ten pounds, and to tenants- 
at-will holding land worth fifty pounds a year. Thus in the 
counties the suffrage was dependent still upon the tenure 
of land, but not upon outright ownership. There were, it is 
seen, several methods of acquiring the county franchise. 

In the boroughs a far greater change was made. The The 

previous local franchises were all abolished, the personal ^ f . 
^ ^ . franchise, 

rights of living voters being guaranteed, and a new uniform 

suffrage was adopted. The right to vote was given to all 

ten pound householders, which meant all who owned or 



438 ENGLAND TO THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 

rented a house or shop or other building of an annual rental 
value, with the land, of ten pounds. Thus the suffrage was 
practically given in boroughs to the great middle class. 
There was henceforth a uniform suffrage in boroughs, and a 
varied suffrage in counties. 

The law applied only to England. In the same session 
similar reform bills were passed for Scotland and Ireland. 
In order to reduce bribery, voting in each constituency 
was limited henceforth to two days. 
^°* ^ The Reform Bill of 1832 was not a democratic measure, but 

reform ^^ made the House of Commons a truly representative body. 

It admitted to the suffrage the wealthier middle class. The 
number of voters, particularly in the boroughs, was con- 
siderably increased ; but the laborers of England had no votes, 
nor had the poorer middle class. The average ratio of voters 
to the whole population of Great Britain was about one to 
thirty. The measure, therefore, though regarded as final 
by the Whig ministry, was not so regarded by the vast 
majority, who were still disfranchised. No further alteration 
was made until 1867, but during the whole period there was 
a demand for extension. In 1831 and 1832 the people,, 
by their monster meetings, riots, acts of violence, had helped 
greatly to pass the bill only to find when the struggle 
was over that others and not themselves had profited by 
their efforts. 

The passage of the Reform Bill showed clearly the pre- 
dominance in the state of the House of Commons over both 
King and Lords in case the House has the evident and em- 
phatic support of the people. 



CHAPTER XIX 

ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO GREAT REFORMS 

(1832-1867) 

England had entered upon a period of Whig government An Era 

that was destined to be almost as prolonged as the preceding whig 

. government, 

period of Tory rule. The Tories had been in power from 

1784 to 1830, with but one short interval. From 1830 to 
1874) the Whigs controlled the government, with the excep- 
tion of short periods which amounted in all to eight years. 
In the elections of 1832, held under the new conditions, 
the Whigs were overwhelmingly victorious. The Tories re- 
turned only about 150 members. The terms Tory and Whig 
now gradually gave way to the terms Conservative and 
Liberal, which are still in use. 

The reforming activity of the Whigs, which had achieved 
the notable triumph of the great change in the House of 
Commons, continued unabated for several years. Several 
measures of great importance were passed by the reformed 
Parliament during the next few years. 

One of the first of these was the abolition of slavery in 
1833. It had been long held by the British courts that 
slavery could not exist in the British Isles, that the instant 
a slave touched the soil of England he became free. More- 
over, after a long agitation, England had abolished the 
slave trade in 1807. Henceforth it was a crime to kidnap 
negroes in Africa and sell them into slavery. But slavery Slavery in 
itself existed in the West Indies, in Mauritius and in South *^® colonies. 
Africa. There were about 750,000 slaves in these colonies. 
To free them was a far more difficult matter than to stop 
the African slave trade, for it was considered an interference 

439 



440 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Abolition 
of slavery. 



Child 
labor. 



with the rights of property, and it might ruin the 
prosperity of the colonies. Two causes were now working 
for the aboHtion of slavery, a growing sensitiveness to the 
moral iniquity of the institution and the decreasing influence 
of its leading supporters, the West Indian planters, owing 
to the fact that their trade with Great Britain had fallen 
off^ greatly since 1815. For many years an anti-slavery 
agitation had been in progress, ably led by Wilberforce, 
Buxton, and Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian, 
who had created the public opinion indispensably necessary 
to any reform. 

Various acts of legislation had been passed looking toward 
the improvement of the position of slaves in the crown 
colonies, but not providing for the abolition of the institu- 
tion itself. These measures were indignantly and hotly 
resented by the planters, who denounced the action of the 
English government in vituperative terms, unwise conduct, 
as it still further alienated public opinion in the mother 
country. A bill was passed in August 1833 decreeing that 
slavery should cease August 1, 1834. It provided for the 
immediate emancipation of all children of six years and 
under ; for a period of apprenticeship for all others for seven 
years, during which three-fourths of their time was to belong 
to their former masters, one-fourth to themselves. This, 
is was argued, would give them the preparation necessary 
for a wise and intelligent use of freedom, but the provision 
did not work well in practice and was ultimately allowed 
to lapse. A gift of twenty million pounds was made to 
the slave owners as compensation for the loss of their 
property. 

Conscience was aroused at the same time by a cruel evil 
right at home, the employment, under barbarous conditions, 
of children in the factories of England. 

The employment of child labor in British industries was 
one of the results of the rise of the modern factory system. 
It was early seen that much of the work done by machinery 



PROBLEM OF CHILD LABOR 441 

could be carried on by children, and as their labor was 
cheaper than that of adults they were swept into the 
factories in larger and larger numbers, and a monstrous 
evil grew up. They were, of course, the children of the 
poorest people. Many began this life of misery at the 
age of five or six, more at the age of eight or nine. In- 
credible as it may seem, they were often compelled to work 
twelve or fourteen hours a day. Half hour intervals were 
allowed for meals, but by a refinement of cruelty they 
were expected to clean the machinery at such times. Fall- 
ing asleep at their work they were beaten by overseers 
or injured by falling against the machinery. In this in- 
human regime there was no time or strength left for educa- 
tion or recreation or healthy development of any kind. 
The moral atmosphere in which the children worked was 
harmful in the extreme. Physically, intellectually, morally, 
the result could only be stunted human beings. 

This shocking abuse had been attacked spasmodically and Previous 
unsuccessfully for thirty years. In 1802 a law was passed ^*t^cks 
limiting the number of hours to twelve a day, and providing system 
that work should not begin before six in the morning, nor 
continue after nine at night. It applied, however, to but 
few mills. In 1816 a bill was introduced providing that 
no child should be employed for more than ten hours a day 
in any factory. The House of Lords limited this to 
cotton mills and extended the hours to twelve. Later it was 
voted that each child should have a quarter of a holiday 
on each Saturday. Such was the pitifully small protection 
guaranteed children workers by the laws of England. 

This monstrous system was defended by political econ- The 

omists, manufacturers, and statesmen in the name of indi- 7^ ^ ^ 

defended. 

vidual liberty, in whose name, moreover, crimes have often 
been committed, the liberty of the manufacturer to conduct 
his business without interference from outside, the liberty 
of the laborer to sell his labor under whatever conditions 
he may be disposed or, as might more properly be said, 



442 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



The 

Factory 
Act, 1833. 



The decay 
of local 
.self-govern- 
ment. 



compelled to accept. A Parliament, however, which had 
been so sensitive to the wrongs of negro slaves in Jamaica, 
could not be indifferent to the fate of English children. 
Thus the long efforts of many English humanitarians, Rob- 
ert Owen, Thomas Sadler, Fielden, Lord Ashley, resulted in 
the passage of the Factory Act of 1833, which prohibited 
the employment in spinning and weaving factories of children 
under nine, made a maximum eight hour day for those from 
nine to thirteen, and of twelve for those from thirteen to 
eighteen. The bill also provided for the sanitary conditions 
of the factories, for a certain amount of recreation and 
education, and, most important, it created a system of 
factory inspectors whose duty it was to see that this law 
was enforced. This was a very modest beginning, yet it 
represented a great advance on the preceding policy of 
England. It was the first of a series of acts regulating 
the conditions of laborers in the interests of society as a 
whole, acts which have become more numerous, more minute, 
and more drastic from 1833 to the present day. The idea 
that an employer may conduct his business entirely as he 
likes has no standing in modem English law. 

The reform spirit, which rendered the decade from 1830 
to 1840 so notable, achieved another vast improvement in 
the radical transformation of municipal government. The 
local self-government of England enjoyed great fame abroad 
but was actually in a very sorry condition at home. Not only 
was the Parliament of 1830 the organ of an oligarchy, but so 
was the system of local government. Usurpations of power 
by a single class had gone on flourishingly under the Tudor 
and Stuart and even Hanoverian kings. The whole political 
structure, local as well as general, was honeycombed with 
notorious abuses. The municipal and the parliamentary 
systems were closely bound together. The unreformed 
boroughs were natural supports of an unreformed House 
of Commons. Now that Parliament had been reformed 
it was natural that the same party should attempt to bring 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 443 

about the abolition of the evils of local government. In The 

earher centuries all the freemen of the boroush had enjoyed ^^^^^^^^ y 

° ** *' for reform, 

full rights of citizenship, and local government had been popu- 
lar in character. But with the lapse of time the term " free- 
men " had become technical and applied only to a few in each 
borough, and frequently to non-residents. Thus Cambridge, 
with a population of about 20,000, had only 118 " free- 
men," Portsmouth, with 46,000, only 102. Many of these 
were poor, paid small taxes, and were in no sense representa- 
tive citizens, yet they alone possessed the right to vote in 
municipal elections. Thus, in Cambridge, the freemen paid 
only about two thousand pounds of the twenty-five thousand 
of the city taxes. But in many cases even the " freemen " 
had no political power, but only privileges of a pecuniary 
nature, such as a right to share in certain charitable 
funds and of exemption from tolls. In very numerous cases 
the local government was entirely in the hands of the cor- 
poration, that is, the mayor and the common council. The 
mayor was chosen by the council and the councilors sat 
for life and had the right to fill all vacancies in their body. 
The government in such cases was literally a close corpora- 
tion. Thus, throughout all England, a very small minority 
had an absolute monopoly of political power in towns and 
cities. 

These municipal governments were notoriously corrupt. Municipal 

Elected for life and self-elected they had no sense of re- eo^^'^"-" 

. ments 

sponsibility to the community at large. Their proceedmgs notoriously 

were generally secret. They levied taxes but rendered no corrupt. 

account of how they expended them. Neglecting the needs 

of the community for proper policing, paving, lighting, 

sanitation, they used the funds largely for self-gratification 

or personal advantage or the advantage of the party which 

they favored. In many of the smaller boroughs the mayor 

alone was practically the entire government. Generally 

speaking, those Englishmen who lived in boroughs were not 

only not self-governed, but were wretchedly misgoverned. 



M4i ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 

This system received its death-blow from the reform of 
Parliament. The two systems hung together, were mutually 
interdependent. The reform of one had, as an inevitable 
consequence, the reform of the other. The power of the 
privileged class in the House of Commons had rested largely 
upon the ease with which they had been able to secure control 
of these little local oligarchies, which had had the right to 
elect the members of the boroughs to the House. In 1833 
a commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject, 
which it did with convincing thoroughness. 
The reform jjj 1835 a law was passed, the Municipal Corporations 
coverament '^^^' second in importance only to the Reform Bill. This 
act provided for the election of town councilors by all 
the inhabitants who had paid taxes during the preceding 
three years. This established a property and residence quali- 
fication. The town council was to elect the mayor. The town 
council and the constituency together formed the corpora- 
tion. The proceedings of the council were to be public; 
the accounts were to be published and audited. Not only 
were property owners but property renters included in the 
new electorate. Those who rented property that was on 
the tax lists as worth ten pounds a year had the right to 
vote as well as those who paid taxes themselves ; in other 
words, a man who paid a rent of about a dollar a week 
for his house or his store was now enfranchised. This bill 
did not apply to London, reserved for special treatment, nor 
to sixty-seven boroughs, which were very small, but con- 
cerned 178 boroughs, the large majority. It is estimated 
that about two million people were affected by it. The bill 
was not a democratic measure, but it gave borough govern- 
ment, as the bill of 1832 had given parliamentary, to the 
wealthy and the middle classes. It effectually restored 
self-government. The basis of representation has been 
widened since 1835. A similar act for Scotland, sweep- 
ing away abuses even more glaring, had been passed in 
1833. 



ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTORIA 445 

In the midst of this period of reform occurred a change Accession 
in the occupancy of the throne. King William IV died June °^ ftiieen 
20, 1837, and was succeeded by his niece, Victoria. The 
young Queen was the daughter of the Duke of Kent, fourth 
son of George III. She was, at the time of her accession, 
eighteen years of age. She had been carefully educated, 
but owing to the fact that William IV disliked her mother, 
she had seen very little of court life, and was very little 
known. Carlyle, oppressed with all the weary weight of 
this unintelligible world, pitied her, quite unnecessarily. 
" Poor little Queen ! " said he, " she is at an age at which 
a girl can hardly be trusted to choose a bonnet for herself; 
yet a task is laid upon her from which an archangel might 
shrink." Not such was the mood of the Queen. She was 
buojrant and joyous, and entered with zest upon a reign which 
was to prove the longest in the annals of England. She 
impressed all who saw her with her dignity and poise. Her Her 

political education was conducted under the guidance, first ^° ^ ^^^ 

p 11- 1 • 111 education, 

of Leopold, Kmg of Belgium, her uncle, and after her acces- 
sion, of Lord Melbourne, both of whom instilled in her mind 
the principles of constitutional monarchy. The question of 
her marriage was important and was decided by herself. Sum- 
moning her cousin. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, into her 
presence, she offered him her hand — " a nervous thing to do," 
as she afterward said, yet the only thing as " he would never 
have presumed to take such a liberty " himself as to ask for 
the hand of the Queen of England. The marriage, consum- 
mated in 1840, was a marriage of affection. " She is as full 
of love as Juliet," said Sir Robert Peel. Her married life was 
exceptionally happy, and when the Prince Consort died 
twenty-one years later, she was inconsolable. During these 
years he was her constant adviser, and so complete was the 
harmony of their views that he was practically quite as much 
the ruler of the country as was she. 

The early years of the new reign were years of trouble 
and unrest. The accession of Victoria brought to an end 



446 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Hanover. 



The 

Badicals 
and the 
Reform 
Bill. 



the connection between England and Hanover, which had 
existed since the elector of Hanover had become king of 
Great Britain in 1714, under the name of George I. As the 
Salic law obtained in Hanover that kingdom now passed 
to the uncle of the Queen, the Duke of Cumberland, George 
I of Hanover. This was, on the whole, more a gain for 
England than a loss, as it freed her from vexatious en- 
tanglements on the Continent. Far more serious was the 
disruption of the colonial empire, threatened bj the Canadian 
Rebellion of 1837. This will be described elsewhere. More 
serious still was the widespread unrest and discontent in 
England itself, an unrest that found expression in the 
Chartist Movement. 

The Reform Bill of 1832 had been carried by a combina- 
tion of Liberals and Radicals, the latter furnishing in those 
exciting days the appearance and the reality of physical 
force, the monster meetings, the riots, which had made the 
Tories feel that a civil war would result if they did not 
yield to what was manifestly the people's will. A breach 
between these two elements now ensued. The Radicals 
looked upon the measure, to the passing of which they had 
so greatly contributed, as merely a step in the right direction, 
from which they themselves had gained nothing. They were 
a genuinely democratic party, aiming at the introduction 
into England of tryly democratic government, popular con- 
trol of the House of Commons and legislation in the interest 
of the people, that is, the great mass of the workers of Great 
Britain. But when, after 1832, they attempted to bring 
forward measures for a wider suffrage as a necessary pre- 
liminary to all this, they met with uncompromising opposi- 
tion on the part of their former allies. Lord John Russell 
took occasion to say pubhcly in 1837 that the Reform Act of 
1832 had been made as extensive as possible in the hope 
that it might be final ; and that the question of the franchise 
ought not to be reopened. The leader of the Liberals had 
spoken. It was clear that the Conservatives would be of 



THE CHARTISTS 447 

the same mind on this matter. There had been a reform 
in 1832 in the interest of the middle classes. Clearly there 
was to be no reform in the interest of the lower classes. 
The middle classes had said so. The Radicals felt that a 
middle class Parliament would consider simply the interests 
of the middle class, and they desired a democratic Parlia- 
ment to legislate for the masses of the laborers of England, 
whether in town or country, for the laborers were the nation. 
The breach between the former allies became complete. The The 
Radicals dubbed Lord John, " Finality Jack." They began Radicals 
a vehement agitation for further reform. Workmgmen s fuj-tj^ej. 
associations, socialist societies, the discontented generally reform, 
worked together. 

In a pamphlet entitled The Rotten House of Commons 
(December 1836), Lovett, one of their leaders, proved from 
official returns that, out of 6,023,752 adult males living 
in the United Kingdom, only 839,519 were voters. He also 
showed that despite the reform of 1832 there were great 
inequalities among the constituencies, that twenty members 
were chosen by 2,411 votes, twenty more by 86,072. The 
immediate demands of the Radicals were expressed in " The The 
People's Charter," or programme, a petition to Parliament People's 
drawn up in 1838. They demanded that the right to vote 
be given to every adult man, declaring, "we perform the 
duties of freemen, we must have the privileges of freemen " ; 
that voting be secret, by ballot rather than orally as was then 
the custom, so that every voter could be free from intimida- 
tion, and less exposed to bribery; that property qualifica- 
tions for membership in the House be abolished ; and that the 
members receive salaries so that poor men, laborers them- 
selves and understanding the needs of laborers, might be 
elected to Parliament if the voters wished. They also de- 
manded that the House of Commons should be elected, not 
for seven years, as was then the law, but simply for one 
year. The object of this was to prevent their representa- 
tives misrepresenting them by proving faithless to their 



448 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Character 
of tlie 
Chartist 



The lack 
of able 
leadership. 



pledges or indifferent or hostile to the wishes of the voters. 
Annual elections would give the voters the chance to punish 
such representatives speedily by electing others in their 
place. " The connection between the representatives and 
the people, to be beneficial, must be intimate," said the 
petition. Such were the five points of the famous Charter 
designed to make Parliament representative of the people, not 
of a class. Once adopted, it was felt that the masses would 
secure control of the legislature and could then improve 
their conditions. 

The Chartists had almost no influence in Parliament, and 
their agitation had consequently to be carried on outside 
in workingmen's associations, in the cheap press, in popular 
songs and poems, in monster meetings addressed by im- 
passioned orators, in numerous and unprecedentedly large 
petitions. One of these was presented in 1839. It was in 
the form of a large cylinder of parchment about four feet 
in diameter, and was said to have been signed by 1,286,000 
persons. The petition was summarily rejected. Notwith- 
standing this failure another was presented in 1842, signed, 
it was asserted, by over three million persons. Borne 
through the streets of London in a great procession it was 
found too large to be carried through the door of the House 
of Commons. It was therefore cut up into several parts and 
deposited on the floor. This, too, was rejected. 

The Chartist movement lasted about ten years, from 1838 
to 1848. It had periods of quiet, followed by periods of 
great activity. The latter were generally contemporary 
with hard times. The whole movement was born of the 
great distress and misery of the English working class. 
Unfortunately it lacked able leadership. Many of its sup- 
porters were men of ability, devotion, and disinterested- 
ness, but during most of the time the real leader was 
Feargus O'Connor, an able orator, but a weak, vain, 
unstable man, who knew better how to alienate those who 
naturally wished to co-operate than to consolidate and 



THE FAILURE OF THE CHARTISTS 449 

magnify a party. The Chartists themselves divided into 
two groups : those who wished to use only peaceful methods 
in their agitation, and those who wished to make an ultimate 
appeal to physical force, believing the other method en- 
tirely ineffective. Whenever the physical-force Chartists 
attempted to act according to their principle they were 
severely punished. 

The Chartists could look to neither great party for aid. The 
The movement smoldered on for ten years, blazing up ^^^^J'^"^ ° 
threateningly in times of unusual distress. Indeed, it was 
a kind of barometer, measuring the misery of the people and 
their sense of injustice. After 1848 the movement sub- 
sided. Encouraged by the French Revolution of that year 
the Chartists held a great national convention or people's 
parliament in London, and planned a vast demonstration 
on behalf of the Charter. Half a million men were to accom- 
pany a new petition to Parliament, which it was expected 
would be overawed and would then yield to so imposing a 
demand of an insistent people. The Government was so 
alarmed that it entrusted the safety of London to the Duke 
of Wellington, then seventy-nine years of age. His arrange- 
ments were made with his accustomed thoroughness. One 
hundred and seventy thousand special constables were en- 
rolled, one of whom was liOuis Napoleon, who before the 
year was out was to be President of the French Republic. 
The result was that the street demonstration was a failure, 
and the petition, examined by a committee of the House, 
was found to contain, not 5,706,000 signatures, as asserted, 
but less than two million. It was summarily rejected. The 
movement died out owing to ridicule, internal quarrels, 
but particularly because of the growing prosperity of the 
country, which resulted from the abolition of the Com 
Laws and the adoption of Free Trade. 

It is difficult to appraise the value and significance of this ^^® 
movement. Judged superficially and by immediate results the ^^ ^j^g 
Chartists failed completely. Yet most of the changes they movement. 



450 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



England's 
policy of 
Protection. 



The Corn 
Laws. 



advocated have since been brought about. There are 
now no property qualifications for members of the House 
of Commons, and the secret ballot has been secured; the 
suffrage is enjoyed by the immense majority of men, though 
not by all; the payment of members has in principle been 
approved by the House of Commons (1906), though not 
yet put in force. Parliaments are still elected for seven 
years. It seems that some of the tremendous impetus of 
England toward democracy, which grew so marked toward 
the close of the nineteenth century, was derived from this 
movement of which Carlyle wrote in 1839 : " The matter of 
Chartism is weighty, deep-rooted, far-extending; did not 
begin yesterday; will by no means end this day or to- 
morrow." 

Simultaneously with the Chartist Movement another was 
going on which had a happier issue. The adoption of the 
principle of free trade must always remain a great event 
in English history, and was the culmination of a remarkable 
movement that extended over forty years, though its most 
decisive phase was concentrated into a few years of intense 
activity. The change war complete from a policy which 
England in common with the rest of the world had followed 
for centuries. 

In 1815 England believed thoroughly in protection. 
Hundreds of articles were subject to duties as they entered the 
country, manufactured articles, ra^Y materials. English 
shipping was also protected by the Navigation Laws. The 
most important single interest among all those protected 
was agriculture. Parliament in 1815 was a parliament of 
landlords, and their legislation was naturally favorable to 
their interest. Corn is a word used in England to describe 
wheat and bread stuffs generally. The laws imposing duties 
on com were the keystone of the whole system of protection, 
because they affected the most influential class in the nation 
and the one, moreover, which made the laws. The advocates 
of free trade necessarily therefore delivered their fiercest 



ECONOMIC REFORMS 451 

assaults upon the Corn Laws. If these could be overthrown 
it was believed that the whole system would fall. Not until 
they were abolished would England be a free trade country. 
The Corn Law of 1815 forbade the importation of foreign 
corn until the price should have reached ten shillings a bushel. 
Later, in 1828, in place of the fixed duty, was put the so- 
called sliding scale, the duty on foreign grain going up as 
the price of domestic grain fell, and decreasing as the home 
price rose. But the object was the same, high protection 
of British grain growers. This was the particular feature 
which the reformers attacked. But for a long while the land- 
lord class was so entrenched in political power that the law 
remained impregnable. Small and piecemeal attacks were 
therefore made upon other parts of the system. Husklsson Huskisson's 
in 1823-5 succeeded in carrying through a modification of reforms, 
the Navigation Laws of 1651. Previously all commerce 
between England and her colonies had to be carried on in 
English ships ; and all commerce between England and any 
other country had to be carried on by English ships or by 
those of the country concerned. An act was passed in 1823 
empowering the Government to conclude reciprocity treaties 
with foreign countries, admitting their ships to British ports 
on the same conditions as British ships, if they would put 
British shipping on the same footing of equality with their 
own in their ports. This opened the way for the ultimate 
abolition of all restraints upon navigation. Huskisson also 
succeeded in securing legislation reducing duties on almost 
all foreign manufactures and on many raw materials. These 
changes were a beginning in the direction of freer trade, but 
they did not touch the strongest interest, the landowners, 
protected by the Com Laws. 

For the next few years public interest was absorbed in Sir Robert 
the various reforms already described. In 1841 the Whig ^^ . 
party, then under the leadership of Lord Melbourne, the 
successor to Earl Grey, was overthrown, and Sir Robert 
Peel, leader of the Conservatives, became prime minister. 



452 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



The Anti- 
Corn-Law 
League. 



The 

arguments 
for Free 
Trade. 



His ministry lasted from 1841 to 1846. The financial con- 
dition of the state was bad, and the distress of the laboring 
classes general and acute. To provide a surplus in place 
of a deficit, and to relieve trade Peel carried through an 
extensive tariif reform. In 1842 there were about 1,200 
articles subject to tariif duties. Peel succeeded in abolish- 
ing or reducing the rates on about 750 of them. But the 
most important interest still remained essentially unaffected. 
The great struggle for free trade came over the Corn Laws. 

In 1839 there was founded, in Manchester, a great manu- 
facturing center, the Anti-Corn-Law League. Its leader 
was Richard Cobden, a young business man, successful, trav- 
eled, thoughtful. Cobden was convinced that the Corn 
Laws interfered with the growth of British manufactures. 
He was soon joined by Jolm Bright, like himself a manu- 
facturer, unlike him, one of the great popular orators of the 
nineteenth century. The League, under these two leaders, 
and Villiers, a member of Parliament, began an earnest 
agitation. It attempted to convince Englishmen that they 
should completely reverse their commercial policy in the 
interest of their own prosperity. The methods of the League 
were business-like and thorough. Its campaign was one 
of persuasion. It distributed a vast number of pamphlets, 
setting forth the leading arguments. Lecturers were sent 
to the large cities and to small country towns. In a single 
year four hundred lectures were delivered to 800,000 persons. 
A purely voluntary movement, gifts poured in until in 1845 
the League was spending a million and a quarter dollars. 
Year after year this process of argumentation went on. 

This free trade party consisted of manufacturers and 
merchants. The manufacturers felt that they did not need 
protection against foreigners, as they believed that their 
own processes were so far superior that the latter could 
not compete with them. The home market would re- 
main theirs even if French and German manufacturers 
were at entire liberty to send their commodities into England 



THE CAMPAIGN FOR FREE TRADE 453 

duty free. They also believed that it was absolutely essen- 
tial for them to gain foreign markets, and that this could not 
be done under the existing system. Increase your foreign 
markets, they said, and you increase the employment of 
Englishmen in English factories, a thing of utmost im- 
portance as the population is growing rapidly. You will 
only be permitted to export freely to other countries if you 
consent to take freely in payment the commodities of those 
countries, their grain, their timber. If you will take these, 
they will purchase your woolens, your cottons, your hard- 
ware, and will not attempt to manufacture these themselves. 
If you do not, you will foster the growth of foreign com- 
petitors in manufacturing and will make them rivals in the 
markets of Europe, a suicidal policy. " In France," said 
one orator, " there are millions willing to clothe themselves 
in English garments, and you have millions of hungry mouths 
to take their corn. In Hungary, not being able to sell 
their corn to England, the people are turning their capital 
to manufacturing their own cloth." Replying to the argu- 
ment that the removal of the Corn Laws would mean the 
ruin of English agriculture, which it was necessary to en- 
courage in order that the country might produce an adequate 
food supply for its own needs, and not become dependent on 
other countries for the very necessaries of life, they pointed 
to Holland, declaring that it was " dependent upon every 
country, that there were no corn laws, yet no scarcity of- 
food, that wages were high and trade brisk." One of the 
most effective arguments was that the time had come when 
the increasing population needed cheap food. 

This agitation extended over seven years. It was con- The Irish 
ducted quite independently of political parties. It does famine, 
not seem, however, that the repeal of the Com Laws could 
have been carried had it not been for a great natural 
calamity, the Irish famine of 1845. " Famine itself, against 
which we had warred, joined us," said John Bright. The 
food of the vast majority of the Irish people was the 



454. ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 

potato. More than half of the eight million inhabitants 
of Ireland depended on it alone for sustenance, and with 
a large part of the rest it was the chief article of diet. A 
failure in the potato crop could mean nothing less than 
famine. In the fall of 1845 this was precisely what impended, 
for a potato disease had set in and it was evident that 
the crop would be hopelessly ruined. Potatoes could not 
be obtained from foreign countries which, fearing for them- 
selves, were forbidding their exportation. At the same time 
the English grain crops were very poor, and foreign grain 
could not be bought by these Irish peasants, so high was 
the duty. The alternatives seemed unavoidable, either star- 
vation for multitudes or cheap grain, which could be ob- 
tained only by the repeal of the Corn Laws. The famine 
came, and tens of thousands perished of starvation. Great 
charitable gifts from England and America aimed to relieve 
Eepeal of the distress but proved inadequate. Finally, in 1846, Sir 
Robert Peel carried against bitter opposition the repeal of 
the Corn Laws by a combination of Conservative and Liberal 
votes.' But in so doing he split his party. The bill was 
passed by 22-3 Liberals and 104 Conservatives, against 229 
Conservatives. Peel had come into office in 1841 the head 
of a party pledged to the support of the Com Laws; in 
1846 he repealed them against the passionate opposition of 
two-thirds of his own party. The vengeance of the pro- 
tectionists was not long in coming. Peel was shortly over- 
thrown by their votes, after having revolutionized -the com- 
mercial policy of Great Britain. Peel had been, converted 
to the theory of free trade some time before the Irish crisis. 
That crisis simply gave an irresistible practical reason for 
putting the theory into immediate effect. 

There still remained after this many duties for pro- 
tective purposes in the English tariff, but the keystone of 
the whole system was removed. In 1849 the Navigation 

^ Until 1849 there was still to be a duty, but a slight one, on corn. 
Then a nominal one of a shilling a quarter. This was abolished in 1869. 



the Corn 
Laws. 



/ 



ABOLITION OF PROTECTIVE DUTIES 455 

Laws were finally abolished, and the ships of all the world Remaining 
might compete with English ships for the carrying trade Protective 
to England and her colonies, might enter British harbors , ,, 
as freely as British ships might. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone removed, 
succeeded in having the duties removed from 123 articles, 
and reduced on 133 others. In 1860 the number of com- 
modities subject to the tariff was reduced to 48. In 1866 
the duty on lumber was abolished. England now has a 
tariff, but it is for revenue only, not for the protection 
of English industries. Nearly all of the revenue from the 
tariff, which now amounts to over a hundred and sixty 
million dollars, comes from the duties on tobacco, tea, spirits, 
wine, and sugar. England is absolutely dependent upon 
other countries for her food supplies. It was evident as 
early as 1845 that English agriculture could not support 
England's population. "y.' 

The twenty years succeeding the repeal of the Corn labor 
Laws were years of quiescence and transition. Compar- legislation, 
atively few changes of importance were made in legisla- 
tion. Those of greatest significance concerned the regula- 
tion of employment in factories and mines. Such legisla- 
tion, merciful in its immediate effects and momentous in 
the reach of the principles on which it rested, was enacted 
particularly during the decade from 1840 to 1850. The 
initial step in such legislation had been taken in the Factory 
Act of 1833, already described, a law that regulated some- 
what the conditions under which children and women could 
be employed in the textile industries. But labor was un- 
protected in many other industries, in which gross abuses 
prevailed. One of the most famous parliamentary reports 
of the nineteenth century was that of a commission ap- 
pointed to investigate the conditions in mines. Published Regulation 
in 1842, its amazing revelations revolted public opinion and °^ labor 
led to quick action. It showed that children of five, six, 
seven years of age were employed underground in coal 
mines, girls as well as boys ; that women as well as men 



456 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Factory 
laws. 



Morley on 
the labor 
code. 



labored under conditions fatal to health and morals ; that 
the hours were long, twelve or fourteen a day, and the 
dangers great. They were veritable beasts of burden, drag- 
ging and pushing carts on hands and knees along narrow 
and low passageways, in which it was impossible to stand 
erect. Girls of eight or ten carried heavy buckets of coal 
on their backs up steep ladders many times a day. The 
revelations were so astounding and sickening that a law 
was passed in 1842 which forbade the employment of women 
and girls in mines ; and which permitted the employment of 
boys of ten for only three days a week. 

Once embarked on this policy of protecting the econom- 
ically dependent classes. Parliament was forced to go further 
and further in the governmental regulation of private in- 
dustry. In 1844 a law was passed which restricted the 
labor of children in factories to half of each day, or six 
and a half hours, or the whole of every other day, the labor 
of women to twelve hours, and also restricting night work 
still further. The Factory Act of 1847, altered somewhat 
by an act of 1850, practically established a ten-hour day 
for labor, a demand long urged by the laboring class and 
bitterly opposed by manufacturers as ruinous to industry, 
as certain to lower wages, and to drive capital to foreign 
countries, by economists as in violation of the " laws " of 
political economy, by both as a violation of the right of 
free contract. 

Since then a long series of similar statutes has been enacted 
by the English Parliament, which it is here impossible to 
describe, so extensive and minute, that Morley, writing nearly 
thirty years ago, and speaking of the Factory and Work- 
shop Consolidation Act of 1878, an act of more than 
fifty printed pages, virtually a labor code, could say: "We 
have to-day a complete, minute, and voluminous code for 
the protection of labor; buildings must be kept pure of 
effluvia; dangerous machinery must be fenced; children and 
young persons must not clean it while in motion ; their hours 



LABOR LEGISLATION 457 

are not only limited, but fixed; continuous employment 
must not exceed a given number of hours, varying with the 
trade, but prescribed by the law in given cases ; a statutable 
number of holidays is imposed; the children must go to 
school, and the employer must every week have a certificate 
to that effect; if an accident happens, notice must be sent 
to the proper authorities ; special provisions are made for 
bake-houses, for lace-making, for collieries, and for a whole 
schedule of other special callings ; for the due enforcement 
and vigilant supervision of this immense host of minute 
prescriptions, there is an immense host of inspectors, cer- 
tifying surgeons, and other authorities, whose business it 
is ' to speed and post o'er land and ocean ' in restless 
guardianship of every kind of labor, from that of the woman 
who plaits straw at her cottage door, to the miner who 
descends into the bowels of the earth, and the seaman who 
conveys the fruits and materials of universal industry to and 
fro between the remotest parts of the globe." ^ 

Since 1878 the principle of governmental regulation has 
been much more extensively applied. The labor code of 
to-day is contained in the Factory and Workshop Act of 
1901, called by Dicey " the most notable achievement of 
English socialism." ^ 

This mid-century period of English history, so sterile <Jrowth of 
in political interest, is thus seen to be highly significant in '^. *^' 
the economic sphere. It was the period in which trade- 
unionism grew rapidly, solidified itself, perfected its ma- 
chinery, and discussed and clarified the demands of the 
laboring class. The effect of this preliminary work was 
apparent later. Workingmen were receiving in their unions 
a kind of education in politics and management that was 

> Morley, Life of Cobden, Ch. XIII. 

" The Combination Act of 1800 which, in connection with the law of 
conspiracy then in force, made a trade union an unlawful association, 
was repealed in 1824. Since then such organizations have not been ille- 
gal. They have grown greatly and now enjoy strong legal protection. 
See Dicey, Law and Opinion in England, 95-102; 190-200; 266-272. 



458 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 

a valuable training for the use of the suffrage, when they 
should get it, as they did in 1867. Meanwhile they came 
to attach less importance to purely political privileges, such 
as those demanded by the Charter, and to study far more 
carefully social questions, arising from the relations of capital 
and labor. During these years a remarkable change of opin- 
The growth ion was going on. The beauties of individualism were seen 
of coUectiv- to be less attractive ; the advantages of collectivism or social- 
ism were more and more emphasized. The economic and 
social beliefs of large classes of the population were under- 
going a profound transformation. The revolution of thought 
was one tending distinctly toward socialism.^ This trans- 
formation was proceeding quietly, and its significance did 
not become apparent until after the passage of the Reform 
Bill of 1867. 

This period of comparative inaction in England was a 
time of great and stirring events and changes abroad, the 
period of the revolutions of 1848, of the Crimean War, in 
which England played a leading part, of the making of 
Italy, the rise of Prussia, the dismemberment of Denmark, 
the humiliation of Austria, the Civil War in the United 
States. The foreign policy of the ministry was active, the 
domestic very subordinate. 
Jews ad- Yet during these years certain internal reforms were car- 

mitted to pjg^j through, which are worthy of mention. In 1858 under 

the House 

of Commons ^^^ Derby-Disraeli ministry Jews were permitted to sit 

in the House of Commons ; the oath required of members 

containing the words " on the true faith of a Christian," 

was altered, and thus another piece of religious intolerance 

was removed, another step in the secularization of the state 

taken, and a controversy of twenty-five years terminated. 

Another reform of the same session was the abolition of 

the property qualification for members of Parliament. Thus 

* On this subject see the remarkable Chapter VII, in Dicey, Law and 
Opinion in England, entitled, " The Growth of Collectivism." On Trade 
Unionism see Bright, History of England, IV, 401-406. 



POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS 459 

one point of the Charter was registered quietly. The gov- 
ernment of India also was greatly altered. 

During many of these years Gladstone was Chan- Gladstone, 
cellor of the Exchequer (1852-1855; 1859-1866), and in Cliancellor 

. . 1 r , n Of the EX" 

this capacity was winning the name of the greatest nnance cheauer 
minister since Peel, and was laying deep the foundations 
of his later power. His policy was economy, and the com- 
pletion of the free trade policy, which he believed would 
augment the prosperity of England. 

By the year 1860 the tariff list had been reduced to 48 
articles. Largely through Gladstone's efforts the excise 
duty on paper was abolished, thus furthering the publica- 
tion of books and papers at a price within the reach of the 
masses. Gladstone also carried through a great scheme Postal 
of using the post offices of England as savings banks. Thus savings 
each locality could have its saving banks without the crea- 
tion of an entirely new and elaborate machinery. The 
system went into force in 1861, and has proved very success- 
ful in encouraging thrift among the working classes. Be- 
fore the end of 1862, 180,000 accounts had been opened. 
Since then the deposits have increased each year. In 1907 
these postal savings banks had deposits of £157,500,000, 
and the number of depositors was nearly 10,700,000. De- 
posits may be made from a shilling upward. The interest 
is small, but the security, that of the State, is perfect. Every 
little hamlet thus has its institution for savings, the local 
post office. Walpole calls this use of the post office " the 
most efficient machinery for the encouragement of thrift 
that the world had ever seen, or the imagination of man 
had ever conjectured." Two years later, in 1864, Mr. 
Gladstone was able to follow up this success by another, gta^e 
using the same machinery of the post office for the selling insurance, 
of small life insurance policies, to the maximum amount of 
a hundred pounds. Thus workingmen with small incomes 
were enabled to insure their lives cheaply, and with a sense 
of absolute safety. 



460 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 

Industrial While from the point of view of politics, of internal re- 

• tfi forms effected by legislation, this period, from 1846 to 1866, 

progress. is unusually barren and insignificant, changes of great im- 
portance were occurring in the domain of industry and sci- 
ence. The printing press was being perfected, which cheap- 
ened vastly the cost of production of newspapers and books, 
rendering the large circulation possible, which is so character- 
istic and vital a feature of the modern world, and which has 
contributed immensely to the democratic evolution of Eng- 
land. Railway construction advanced rapidly, the drawing 
power of locoiuotives was greatly augmented, iron ships 
were supplanting wooden, machinery was applied to agri- 
culture, the sewing machine, which astonishingly lightened 
the work of the home, and which inaugurated a revolution 
in the clothing trade, was being very widely adopted, imple- 
ments of war were being increased in power and deadliness. 
During this period the Atlantic Cable was finally laid, 
after great and distressing failures, by an American, Cyrus 
Field, supported by British capitalists. As a consequence, 
cables were later laid in every direction, which were to bind 
the whole world together by their rapid transmission of 
news, profoundly altering the conditions of commerce and 
international relations.^ 

During the period of transition just described, England 
was outgrowing old forms of thought and organization, 
was evidently tending toward democracy. Yet this general 
trend was not mirrored in her political life and institu- 
tions. Parhament remained what the Reform Bill of 1832 
had made it. From 1832 to 1867 there was no altera- 
tion either in the franchise or in the distribution of seats 
in the House of Commons. This was the era of middle class 
rule, as its predecessor had been one of aristocratic rule. 

But during this period the demand was frequently made 
that the suffrage be extended. Not more than one man 

^ On this remarkable chapter of history see Walpole, History of 
Twenty-five Years, I, Ch. 7, 



THE EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE 461 

in six then had the right to vote. The demand was pressed The demand 

by the Chartists from 1838 to 1848. After that, from ^"^^^ 
. . , . wider 

time to time, proposals were made in Parliament to suffrage. 

enlarge the electorate. Bills to this effect were introduced 
in 1852, 1854, 1859, and 1860, but none of them pro- 
gressed far. Both parties treated them gingerly and with 
trepidation. Furthermore, the exceptional position held by 
one man in English public life during these years. Lord Palm- 
erston, was a deterrent, for Palmerston was strongly opposed 
to change in the institutions of England. So commanding 
was his personality that it came in a way to be tacitly 
understood that no change should be attempted as long as 
he remained in politics. But in 1865 Lord Palmerston 
died, and shortly afterward Lord Derby and Earl Russell 
passed from the scene of politics. In place of the old- 
time statesmen, two younger men, neither of whom feared 
innovation, occupied the center of the stage, Gladstone and 
Disraeli. Their rivalry constitutes the central thread of 
parliamentary history for many years. 

Then, too, the success of the United States in the Civil Effect of 
War greatly encouraged the democratic party in England, __. 
for it was considered a triumph of democracy over aris- 
tocracy. Moreover, in that war the sympathy of the work- 
ing classes in England had been steadfastly with the North, 
though they suffered greatly from the war, while the upper 
classes had largely favored the South. The people, in 
other words, had been right, when the favored class had 
not, and when the ministry had so handled its relations with 
the United States as to leave an ugly feeling and a grave 
diplomatic difficulty behind to harass the coming years. 
Were not people who had shown such moral and intellectual 
qualities worthy of any share in the government of England .? 
Thus the question of the further extension of the suffrage 
came once more prominently before the English people and 
Parliament. 

In 1866 Mr. Gladstone, leader of the House of Commons, 



462 ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Gladstone 
introduces 
a reform 
bill. 



The bill 
defeated. 



under Earl Russell as prime minister, brought forward 
a bill to enlarge the electorate. Earl Russell had himself 
of recent years been favorable to reform. By the bill of 
1832 the suffrage was given in the boroughs to those owning 
or " occupying " houses or buildings yielding ten pounds 
a year. From 1832 to 1867 England was consequently 
ruled by the " ten pound householders." But five out of 
every six men could not meet this qualification, and were, 
therefore, without political power. The masses of working- 
men could not afford to pay ten pounds a year for the 
houses in which they lived. 

The measure now introduced proposed but a slight change. 
In boroughs the suffrage was to be extended to seven pound 
householders. This would add only about 150,000 to the 
number of voters. The county franchise was not to be 
treated even as liberally as the borough. The timidity of 
this measure, and the half-hearted way in which it was urged, 
encouraged all the opponents of change, and failed to arouse 
any counteracting interest among the unenfranchised out- 
side of Parliament. The Conservatives were united against 
it, and a body of the Liberals joined them. There was no 
sign that the people wanted the measure, therefore this 
coalition did not hesitate to defeat it. The ministry 
resigned and Derby became prime minister, with Disraeli as 
leader of the House of Commons. The Conservatives were 
now in power, and the opponents of reform thought that they 
had effectually stemmed the advance toward democracy. 
Never were politicians more completely deceived. The 
people instantly became alert and indignant at the rejection 
of even so modest a measure. Gladstone, in his final speech 
on the bill, had exclaimed defiantly to his opponents, " You 
cannot fight against the future; time is on our side," a 
phrase that now became a battle cry. Gladstone, aroused, 
lost all his timidity and became a fiery apostle of an extensive 
reform. A determined effort was made to influence the 
people, and it succeeded. 



REFORM BILL OF 1867 463 

Mr. Bright, with ill-concealed menace, incited the people 
to renew the scenes of 1832. " You know what your fathers 
did thirty-four years ago, and you know the result. The 
men who, in every speech they utter, insult the workingmen, 
describing them as a multitude given up to ignorance and 
vice, will be the first to yield when the popular will is 
loudly and resolutely expressed. If Parliament Street, from 
Charing Cross to the venerable Abbey, were filled with men 
seeking a Reform Bill these slanderers of their countrymen 
would learn to be civil, if they did not learn to love free- 
dom." Under the influence of such incitement the people 
speedily lost their indifference, and great popular demonstra- 
tions of the familiar kind occurred in favor of the bill. 
The people were manifestly in earnest. 

Seeing this, and feeling that reform was inevitable, and Kefonn 
that, such being the case, the Conservative party might canned by 
as well reap the advantages of granting it as to allow those 
advantages to accrue to others, Disraeli in the following 
year, 1867, introduced a reform bill. This was remodeled 
almost entirely by the Liberals, who, led by Gladstone, de- 
feated the proposals of the ministry time after time, and suc- 
ceeded in having their own principles incorporated in the 
measure. The bill as finally passed was largely the work of 
Gladstone, practically everything he asked being in the end 
conceded, but it was the audacity and subtlety and resource- 
fulness of Disraeli that succeeded in getting a very radical 
bill adopted by the very same legislators who the year before 
had rejected a moderate one. 

The bill as finally passed in August, 1867, closed the Provisions 
rule of the middle class in England, and made England a °^ *^® 
democracy. The franchise in boroughs was given to all 
householders. Thus, instead of ten pound or seven pound 
householders, all householders, whatever the value of their 
houses, were admitted ; also, all lodgers who had occupied 
for a year lodgings of the value, unfurnished, of ten pounds, 
or about a dollar a week. In the counties the sufFraire 



464. ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REFORMS 



Redistribu- 
tion of 
seats. 



was given to all those who owned property yielding five 
pounds clear income a year, rather than ten pounds, as 
previously; and to all occupiers who paid at least twelve 
pounds, rather than fifty pounds, as hitherto. Thus the 
better class of laborers in the boroughs, and practically all 
tenant farmers in the counties, received the vote. By this 
bill the number of voters was nearly doubled.^ 

So sweeping was the measure that the prime minister him- 
self. Lord Derby, called it a " leap in the dark." Carlyle, 
forecasting a dismal future, called it " shooting Niagara." 
Robert Lowe, whose memorable attacks had been largely 
instrumental in defeating the meager measure of the year 
before, now said, " we must educate our masters." It should 
be noted that during the debates on this bill, John Stuart 
Mill made a strongly reasoned speech in favor of granting 
the suffrage to women. The House considered the proposi- 
tion highly humorous. Nevertheless, this movement, then 
in its very beginning, was destined to persist and grow. 

Acts, similar in principle though differing in detail, were 
passed in 1868 for Scotland and Ireland. 

Also there was at this time some redistribution of seats 
from small boroughs to large towns and counties. There 
is little doubt that the Conservatives expected to be rewarded 
for passing the Reform Bill of 1867, as the Liberals had 
been for passing that of 1832, thought, that is, that the 
newly enfranchised would, out of gratitude, continue them 
in office. If so, they were destined to a great disappoint- 
ment. The elections of 1868 resulted in giving the Liberals 
a majority of a hundred and twenty. Mr. Gladstone now 
became the head of the most notable Liberal ministry of 
modern times. 

^ Just before 1867 the county voters numbered 768,705; the borough 
voters 602,088. By 1871 the former had increased to 1,055,467; the 
latter to 1,470,956. 



CHAPTER XX 
ENGLAND UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

Mr. Gladstone possessed a more commanding majority The Great 
than any prime minister had had since 1832. As the en- Ministry, 
largement of the franchise in 1832 had been succeeded by 
a period of bold and sweeping reforms, so was that of 1867 
to be. Mr. Gladstone was a perfect representative of the 
prevailing national mood. The recent campaign had shown 
that the people were ready for a period of reform, of im- 
portant constructive legislation. Supported by such a ma- 
jority, and by a public opinion so vigorous and enthusiastic, 
Gladstone stood forth master of the situation. No states- 
man could hope to have more favorable conditions attend 
his entrance into power. He was the head of a strong, 
united, and resolute party. The ministry contained a re- 
markable array of able men. Mr. Bright was there, one 
of the most eloquent orators who have spoken the English 
tongue; Mr. Forster, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Lowe, and Lord 
Clarendon were also members. 

The man who thus became prime minister at the age of 

fifty-nine was one of the notable figures of modem English 

history. His parents were Scotch. His father had hewed 

out his own career, and from small beginnings had, by 

energy and talent, made himself one of the wealthiest and 

most influential men in Liverpool, and had been elected a 

member of Parliament. Young William Ewart Gladstone re- winiam 

ceived " the best education then going " at Eton College and Ewart 

Oxford University, in both of which institutions he stood out Gladstone, 

1809-1898 
among his fellows. At Eton his most intimate friend was 

Arthur Hallam, the man whose splendid eulogy is Tennyson's 

465 



466 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



Entrance 

into 

Parliament. 



Leader of 
the Liberal 
Party. 



Gladstone's 

First 

Ministry, 

1868-1874. 



In Memoriam. His career at Oxford was crowned by brilliant 
scholarlj successes, and here he also distinguished him- 
self as a speaker in the Union, the university debating club. 
In one of the discussions he denounced the Reform Bill of 
1832, then pending in Parliament, as destined to change 
the form of government and subvert the social order. Be- 
fore leaving the university his thought and inclination were 
to take orders in the church, but his father was opposed to 
this and the son yielded. In 1833 he took his seat in the 
House of Commons as representative for one of the rotten 
boroughs which the Reform Bill of the previous year had 
not abolished. He was to be a member of that body for 
over sixty years, and for more than half that time its 
leading member. Before attaining the premiership, there- 
fore, in 1868, he had had a long political career and a varied 
training, had held many offices, culminating in the Chancellor- 
ship of the Exchequer and the leadership of the House of 
Commons. Beginning as a Conservative (Macaulay called 
him in 1838 the " rising hope of the stem and unbending 
Tories "), he came under the influence of Sir Robert Peel, a 
man who, conservative by instinct, was gifted with unusual 
prescience and adaptability, and who possessed the courage 
required to be inconsistent, the wisdom to change as the 
world changed. Gladstone had, after a long period of transi- 
tion, landed in the opposite camp, and was now the leader 
of the Liberal Party. By reason of his business ability, 
shown in the management of the nation's finances, his knowl- 
edge of parliamentary history and procedure, his moral 
fervor, his elevation of tone, his intrepidity and courage, 
his reforming spirit, and his remarkable eloquence, he was - 
eminently qualified for leadership. When almost sixty 
he became prime minister, a position he was destined to 
fill four times, displaying marvelous intellectual and physical 
energy. His administration, lasting from 1868-1874, is 
called the Great Ministry. The key to his policy is found 
in his remark to a friend when the summons came from 



THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF IRELAND 467 

the Queen for him to form a ministry : " My mission is Dominance 
to pacify Ireland." The Irish question, in fact, was to °^ Irish 
be the most absorbing interest of Mr. Gladstone's later 
political career, dominating all four of his ministries. 

To understand the question, a brief survey of Irish history 
in the nineteenth century is necessary. Ireland was all 
through the century the most discontented and wretched 
part of the British Empire. While England constantly 
grew in numbers and wealth, Ireland decreased in popula- 
tion, and her misery increased. In 1815 Ireland was in- 
habited by two peoples, the native Irish, who were Catholics, 
and settlers from England and Scotland, who were for the 
most part Anglicans or Presbyterians. The latter were 
a small but powerful minority. 

The fundamental cause of the Irish question lies in the 

fact that Ireland is a conquered country, that the Irish Ireland a 

are a subject race. As early as the twelfth century the ^'^^^l^^'^^o 

country. 
English began to invade the island. Attempts made by 

the Irish at various times during six hundred years to 
repel and drive out the invaders only resulted in rendering 
their subjection more complete and more galling. Irish 
insurrections have been pitilessly punished, and race hatred 
has been the consuming emotion in Ireland for centuries. 
The contest has been unequal, owing to the far greater re- 
sources of England during all this time. The result of 
this turbulent history was that in 1815 the Irish were a 
subject people in their own land, as they had been for 
centuries, and that there were several evidences of this 
so conspicuous and so burdensome that most Irishmen could 
not pass a day without feeling the bitterness of their situa- 
tion. It was a hate-laden atmosphere which they breathed. 
The marks of subjection were various. The Irish did The 

not own the land of Ireland, which had once belong-ed to ^^^^"^^ 

. , ^ question, 

their ancestors. The various conquests by English rulers 

had been followed by extensive confiscations of the land. 

Particularly extensive was that of Cromwell. These lands 



468 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



The 

religious 

question. 



The 

political 

question. 



were given in large estates to Englishmen. The Irish were 
mere tenants, and most of them tenants-at-will, on lands that 
now belonged to others. The Irish have always regarded 
themselves as the rightful owners of the soil of Ireland, have 
regarded the English landlords as usurpers, and have de- 
sired to recover possession for themselves. Hence there has 
arisen the agrarian question, a part of the general Irish 
problem. 

Again, in 1815 the Irish were the victims of religious in- 
tolerance. At the time of the Reformation they remained 
Catholic, while the English separated from Rome. At- 
tempts to force the Anglican Church upon them only stif- 
fened their opposition. Nevertheless, in 1815 they were 
paying tithes to the Anglican Church in Ireland, though 
they were themselves ardent Catholics, never entered a 
Protestant church, and were supporting their own churches 
by voluntary gifts. Thus they contributed to two churches, 
one alien, which they hated, and one to which they were 
devoted. Thus a part of the Irish problem was the re- 
ligious question. 

Again, in 1815 the Irish did not make the laws which 
governed them. In 1800 their separate Parliament in Dub- 
lin was abolished, and from 1801 there was only one Par- 
liament in Great Britain, that in London. While Ireland 
henceforth had its quota of representatives in the House 
of Commons, it was always a hopeless minority. More- 
over, the Irish members did not really represent the large 
majority of the Irish, as no Catholic could sit in the House 
of Commons. There was this strange anomaly that, while 
the majority of the Irish could vote for members of Parlia- 
ment, they must vote for Protestants — a bitter mockery. 
The Irish demanded the right to govern themselves. Thus 
another aspect of the problem was purely political. 

The abuse just mentioned was removed in 1829,^ when Cath- 

^ Catholics were permitted to hold oflSces after 1828 by the abolition 
of the Test Acts. 



THE IRISH FAMINE 469 

olic Emancipation was carried, which henceforth permitted Catholic 
Catholics to sit in the House of Commons. The English ^j^^^°'^*' 
statesmen granted this concession only when forced to do so 
by the imminent danger of civil war. The Irish consequently 
felt no gratitude. Moreover, at the moment when Catholics 
were being admitted to Parliament, most of them lost their 
vote by the much higher franchise qualification enacted at 
the same time, for the qualification was raised in Ireland 
from forty shillings to ten pounds, though for England it 
remained at forty shillings. Shortly after Catholic Emanci- 
pation had been achieved, the Irish, under the matchless 
leadership of O'Connell, endeavored by much the same meth- 
ods to obtain the repeal of the Union between England and The repeal 
Ireland, effected in 1801, and to win back a separate legis- movemeat. 
lature and a large measure of independence. This move- 
ment, for some time very formidable, failed completely, 
owing to the iron determination of the English that the 
union should not be broken, and to the fact that the leader, 
O'Connell, was not willing in last resort to risk civil war 
to accomplish the result, recognizing the hopelessness of such a 
contest. This movement came to an end in 1843. However, 
a number of the younger followers of O'Connell, chagrined at 
his peaceful methods, formed a society called " Young Ire- 
land," the aim of which was Irish independence and a repub- 
lic. They rose in revolt in the troubled year, 1848. The 
revolt, however, was easily put down. 

As if Ireland did not suffer enough from political and 
social evils, an appalling catastrophe of nature was added. 
The Irish famine of 1845-7, to which reference has already The Irish 
been made, was a tragic calamity, far-reaching In its famine, 
effects. The repeal of the Corn Laws did not check it. 
The distress continued for several years, though gradually 
growing less. The potato crop of 1846 was inferior to that 
of 1845, and the harvests of 1848 and 1849 were far from 
normal. Charity sought to aid, but was insufficient. The 
government gave money, and later gave rations. In March 



470 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

1847 over 700,000 people were receiving government sup- 
port. In March and April of that year the deaths in 
the workhouses alone were more than ten thousand a month. 
Peasants ate roots and lichens, or flocked to the cities in 
the agony of despair, hoping for relief. Multitudes fled 
to England or crowded the emigrant ships to America, 
dying by the thousand of fever or exhaustion. It was a 
long drawn out horror, and when it was over it was found 
Decline of that the population had decreased from about 8,300,000 in 

the popula- ig45 ^^ j^gg ^^^^^ 6,600,000 in 1851. Since then the de- 
tion. . . , . 

crease occasioned by emigration has contmued. By 1881 

the population had fallen to 5,100,000, by 1891 to 4,700,- 
000, by 1901 to about 4,450,000. Since 1851 perhaps 
4,000,000 Irish have emigrated. Ireland, indeed, is probably 
the only country whose population decreased in the nine- 
teenth century. 

For many years after the famine, and the failure of 
** Young Ireland " in 1848, Irish politics were quiescent. 
Year after year the ceaseless emigration to the United States 
continued. Finally, there was organized among the Irish 
The Fenian in America a secret society, called the Fenians, whose pur- 
movement, pose was to achieve the independence of the republic of 
Ireland. The Irish in the two countries co-operated, and 
in 1865 and 1866 were active. James Stephens, the leader 
in Ireland, announced that the flag of the Irish republic 
would be raised in 1865. The Government, alarmed, took 
stringent measures, arresting many of the leaders, and even 
securing from Parliament the suspension of the Habeas 
Corpus Act in Ireland. In May 1866 the Fenians in 
the United States attempted an invasion of Canada. About 
1,200 of them crossed the Niagara River, but were soon 
driven back, though only after blood had been shed. Several, 
taken prisoners, were tried by courts-martial and shot. In 
1867 various Fenian outrages occurred in Ireland and in 
England. There were many arrests, trials, and some execu- 
tions. The chief significance of the Fenian movement was 



THE IRISH CHURCH 471 

the alarm it aroused in England, and the vivid evidence 
it gave of the unrest and deep-rooted discontent of Ireland. 
The Irish question thus became again an exciting topic for 
discussion, a problem pressing upon Parliament for solution. 

When Gladstone came into power in 1868 he was resolved 
to pacify the Irish by removing some of their more pro- The TJpas 
nounced grievances, the three branches of the Irish Upas tree, ^^^^' 
as he called them — the Irish Church, the Irish land laws, and 
Irish education. 

The question of the Irish Church was the first one attacked. The Irish 
This was the Anglican Church established and endowed in Church. 
Ireland at the time of the Reformation. It was a branch 
of the Church of England. Its position was anomalous. 
It was a state church, yet it was the church not of the 
people, but of a small minority. Established to win over 
the Catholics to Protestantism, it had signally failed of 
its purpose. Its members numbered less than an eighth 
of the population. There were many parishes, about 150, 
in which there was not a single member. There were nearly 
900 in which there were less than fifty members. Yet these 
places were provided with an Anglican clergyman and a 
place of worship, generally the former Catholic church 
building. The Church was maintained by its endowment 
and by the tithes which the Catholics, as well as the Protest- 
ants, paid. Sidney Smith said of this institution : " On 
an Irish Sabbath the bell of the neat parish church often 
summons to service only the parson and an occasional con- 
forming clerk; while two hundred yards oif, a thousand 
Catholics are huddled together in a miserable hovel, and 
pelted by all the storms of heaven," and he added, " There is 
no abuse like it in all Europe, in all Asia, in all the discovered 
parts of Africa, and in all that we have heard of Tim- 
buctoo." This favored corporation did not even discharge 
its religious functions with zeal. Many a clergyman used 
his position simply for the salary attached, employed a 
curate to perform his duties, and himself lived in England. 



472 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

The tithe The Irish resisted the payment of tithes, and the result was 
the so-called tithe war, in which the peasant's property, 
his cow or goat, his chickens or kettles, were seized and 
sold for payment. Even such methods were not successful. 
In 1833 only about 12,000 out of 104,000 pounds due 
could be collected. At length, in 1838, the system was 
abandoned. The tithes were made a tax upon the land, 
which simply meant that the peasants no longer paid them 
directly, but paid them indirectly in the form of the in- 
creased rent demanded by the landlord. The Catholics 
were still supporters of a wealthy and alien corporation. 
Meanwhile, their own priests were exceedingly poor, and their 
own services had to be held in the open air or in wretched 
buildings. The existence of this alien church was regarded 
as humiliating and oppressive. 

Gladstone in 1869 procured the passage of a law abolish- 
Digestab- J^g tithes, even in this roundabout form, and disestablishing 
the Irish ^"^ partly disendowing the Church. The Church henceforth 
Church. ceased to be connected with the State. Its bishops lost 

their seats in the House of Lords. It became a voluntary 
organization and was permitted to retain a large part of its 
property as an endowment. The rest was to be appropriated 
as Parliament should direct. It was to have all the church 
buildings which it had formerly possessed. It was still very 
rich, but the connection with the Church of England was to 
cease January 1, 1871. The bill, though very favorable to 
the Church, was denounced as sheer robbery, as " highly offen- 
sive to Almighty God," as the " greatest national sin ever com- 
mitted." Nevertheless, it passed and became law. One 
branch of the famous Upas tree had been lopped off. 

Gladstone now approached a far more serious and per- 

System of plexing problem — the system of land tenure. Ireland was 

enure, g^jjjjgg^ exclusively an agricultural country, yet the land 

was chiefly owned, not by those who lived on it and tilled 

it, but by a comparatively small number of landlords, who 

held large estates. Many of these were Englishmen, ab- 



THE LAND QUESTION 473 

sentees, who rarely or never came to Ireland, and who re- 
garded their estates simply as so many sources of revenue. 
The business relations with their tenants were carried on by 
agents or bailiffs, whose treatment of the tenants was fre- 
quently harsh and exasperating. In the minds of the Irish 
their landlords were foreigners, who had acquired by robbery 
land which they regarded as rightly belonging to themselves. 
This initial injustice they never forgot. There had been 
from the beginning a wide gulf between the two. As, how- 
ever, there were almost no industries in Ireland, the inhab- 
itants were obliged to have land. They were, therefore, in an The land 
economic sense, at the mercy of the landlord. There was, 
properly speaking, no competition among landowners to rent 
their land, forcing them, therefore, to treat their tenants with 
some liberality and consideration. There was competition 
only among the applicants for land, applicants so numerous 
that they would offer to pay much more for a little plot on 
which to raise their potatoes, which furnished the chief food, 
than the value of the land justified. The result was that in 
many cases they could not pay the stipulated rent and were 
evicted. Their position only became still more deplorable, 
for land they must have or starve ; consequently, they would 
promise a higher rent to some other landlord, with, in 
the end, another eviction as a result. Now, eviction was 
easy, because these petty farmers were tenants-at-will, that Tenants-at- 
is, tenants who must leave their holdings at the will and will, 
pleasure of the landlord, or on short notice, generally six 
months, obviously a most insecure form of tenure. Lands 
were not rented for a year or five years or ten, but only 
as long as the owner should see fit. Occupation could be 
terminated abruptly by the landlord, starvation faced the 
peasant. Moreover, Irish landlords rented, as was cor- 
rectly stated at the time, not farms, that is, land and the 
necessary buildings and improvements, but simply land. 
The tenant put up at his own expense such buildings and made 
such improvements in the way of fences, draining, clearing. 



474 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



No compen- 
sation for 
improve- 
ments. 



Industry 
and thrift 
penalized. 



Misery of 
the peas- 
antry. 



Deeds of 
violence. 



fertilizing, as he could, or wished ; in very many cases the land 
would have had no value whatever, but for these improve- 
ments. Yet, as the law then stood, when a landlord evicted 
his tenant he was not obliged to pay for any buildings 
or improvements made during the tenant's occupation. He 
simply appropriated so much property created by the tenant. 

It would be hard to conceive a more unwise or unjust 
system. It encouraged indolence and slothfulness. The land 
was wretchedly cultivated, because good cultivation of it was 
penalized. Why should a tenant work hard to improve the 
quality of his holding, to erect desirable farm buildings, when 
he knew that this would merely mean a higher rent or his evic- 
tion in favor of some one who would offer a higher rent, in 
which case all his improvements would benefit others and not 
himself.? In other words, it was a positive disadvantage to a 
tenant to be prosperous. If prosperous, he made efforts to 
conceal the fact, as did the peasants in pre-revolutionary 
France. Now, the social effects of this system were dis- 
astrous in the extreme. Chronic and shocking misery was the 
lot of the Irish peasantry. " The Irish peasant," says an 
official English document of the time, " is the most poorly 
nourished, most poorly housed, most poorly clothed of any in 
Europe ; he has no reserve, no capital. He lives from day to 
day." His house was generally a rude stone hut, with a dirt 
floor. The census of 1841 estabhshed the fact that in the 
case of forty-six per cent, of the population, the entire family 
lived in a house, or, more properly, hut of a single room. 
Frequently the room served also as a barn for the live stock. 

Stung by the misery of their position, and by the in- 
justice of the laws that protected the landlord, and that 
gave them only two hard alternatives, surrender to the 
landlord, or starvation, and believing that when evicted 
they were also robbed, and goaded by the hopeless outlook 
for the future, the Irish, in wild rage, committed many 
atrocious agrarian crimes, murders, arson, the killing or 
maiming of cattle. This in turn brought a new coercion 



THE LAND ACT OF 1870 475 

law from the English Parliament, which only aggravated the 
evil. 

Such was the situation. Mr. Gladstone, desiring to gov- 
ern Ireland, not according to English, but according to 
Irish ideas, faced it resolutely. He had an important argu- 
ment at hand. While the system just described was the 
one prevailing throughout most of Ireland, a different one 
had grown up in a single province, Ulster, the so-called The Ulster 
system of " tenant right." The tenant's right was un- System, 
disturbed possession of his holding as long as he paid his 
rent, and fair payment for all permanent improvements, in 
case he should relinquish his holding, whether voluntarily 
or because of inability to pay the rent. This was mere 
custom, not law. But the result was that the peasants 
of Ulster were hard-working and prosperous, whereas in 
the rest of Ireland the contrary was the case. The out- 
going peasant received, as a matter of fact, for his improve- 
ments from five to twenty times the amount of his annual 
rent. It paid him, therefore, to make them. Mr, Glad- 
stone took this local custom and made it a law for all 
Ireland. In the Land Act of 1870 it was provided that Land Act of 
if evicted for any other reason than for the non-payment of ^^''^• 
rent, the tenant could claim compensation for disturbance 
from the landlord, and also that he was to receive compensa- 
tion for all improvements of a permanent character on giving 
up his holding. It was hoped that thus the peasants would 
have a sense of security in their occupation, and that with 
security would come prosperity and peace. 

There were certain other clauses in the bill, not greatly 
approved by Gladstone, but strongly urged by Mr. Bright, 
whose influence with the people Gladstone did not wish to 
alienate. Bright desired that the Irish peasants should The Bright 
gradually cease to be tenants of other people's land, and clauses, 
should become landowners themselves. This could only be 
done by purchasing the estates of the landlords, and this 
obviously the peasants were unable to do. The Bright 



476 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



The bill 
denounced 
as revolu- 
tionary. 



The land 
Act a 
disappoint- 
ment. 



clauses, therefore, provided that the State should help the 
peasant up to a certain amount, he in turn repaying the 
State for the money loaned by easy instalments, covering a 
long period of years. Accordingly, carefully guarded land 
purchase clauses were put into this bill. 

The bill thus proposed went through Parliament with 
comparative ease. On one point it was vigorously attacked, 
the clause giving a tenant compensation from the landlord 
if the landlord evicted him for any other reason than 
for the non-payment of rent. This, said Disraeli, is revolu- 
tionary. It alters, by act of Parliament, the nature of 
property, the thing least to be tampered with safely by legis- 
lation. The landlord may no longer do what he will with 
his own. In place of absolute and uncontrolled ownership, 
you make the tenant part owner, for he can not be evicted 
as long as he pays his rent. You create a hybrid and 
dangerous form of land tenure, dual ownership. If you 
violate the sacredness of property in land, you may do it 
in other kinds, and thus the people will come to see that 
they can acquire property not alone by labor, but by taking 
another's by act of Parliament. To which the reply was 
that one's absolute right to property is conditioned upon 
its conducing to the public welfare, that restrictions may 
be imposed when in the interest of society as a whole, and 
that the principle of the factory acts, and of the laws regu- 
lating banking, corporations, trade unions, was the same. It 
was simply now being applied for the first time to land. 

The Land Act of 1870 did not achieve what was hoped 
from it; did not bring peace to Ireland. Landlords found 
ways of evading it, and evictions became more numerous 
than ever. The act did not forbid landlords to raise their 
rents, and did not guarantee the tenant compensation for 
disturbance if he were evicted for non-payment of rent, 
only if evicted arbitrarily. Practically, then, it was easy 
for a landlord to get rid of any tenant he might wish to, 
by simply raising his rent to a point the tenant could not 



EDUCATIONAL REFORM 477 

meet. Nor did the land purchase clauses prove effective. 
Only seven sales were made up to 1877. 

Nevertheless, the bill was very important, because of the Its prin- 
principles upon which it was based. One principle was ^^^ ^^ ^™' 
that the landlord's ownership of the sou was not absolute 
and unrestricted, that the tenant was in some sense a partner 
in the land he tilled, in the soil of Ireland. Another 
was the desirability of enabling the tenant to become com- 
plete owner. The land-purchase section of the act proved 
ineffective, largely because very timidly applied, but it con- 
tained an idea that was to grow more and more attractive 
and to be applied in a long series of laws destined in the end 
to be highly successful. In the principles on which it was 
based, the Land Act of 1870 was path-breaking. 

Another measure of this active ministry was designed to Educational 
provide a national system of elementary education. The ^® °^°^ 
educational system of England was deplorably inadequate 
and inefficient, inferior to that of many other countries. 
England possessed the famous endowed schools of Eton, 
Rugby, Harrow, but these and others were for the aristo- 
cratic and prosperous middle classes. But she possessed 
no national system of public schools for the mass of the 
population. It was long the accepted opinion in England 
that education was no part of the duty of the State. 

The work that the State neglected was discharged in a Church 
measure, by the various religious denominations. Whatever ^° °° ^* 
education the children of the working class received, they re- 
ceived in schools maintained by voluntary gifts, generally 
in connection with a church. Most of the schools were 
Anglican, some were Wesleyan, some Catholic, some Jewish. 
In 1833 Parliament appropriated the sum of 20,000 pounds 
in aid of schools established by voluntary effort. The sum 
was ludicrously small. Prussia at that time was spending 
many times as much for its popular education, and Prussia 
was a far poorer country and a smaller one. Nevertheless, 
Parliament tacitly recognized by this vote that the State 



478 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



The system 
inadequate. 



The 

question 
becomes 
urgent. 



The 
Forster 
Education 
Act of 
1870. 



had a duty to perform in educating its citizens. The sum 
was enlarged to 30,000 pounds in 1839. Once embarked 
upon this course, there could be no turning back. The 
parliamentary grant grew greatly, and, between 1860 and 
1865, it averaged annually not far from 700,000 pounds. 
With this encouragement the number of voluntary schools 
increased, but was, nevertheless, totally inadequate to the 
needs of the nation. It came to be generally admitted that 
this system would not suffice for the education of the people. 
In 1869 it was estimated that of 4,300,000 children in 
need of education, 2,000,000 were not in school at all, 
1,000,000 were in schools that received no grant from the 
government, were uninspected, and were generally of a very 
inferior character, and only 1,300,000 were in schools aided by 
the State and inspected by the State. Moreover, whatever 
facilities existed were unevenly distributed; many districts 
being entirely without schools. 

Many forces combined now to make the question of popu- 
lar education urgent. When the working classes in the 
boroughs were given the suffrage in 1867, the cause of edu- 
cation received a great stimulus. " We must educate our 
masters," was the watchword. Foreign countries were cited 
as examples. The northern states, which had conquered the 
southern in the American Civil War, were the home of the 
common school, and on the Continent men spoke of the 
victory of Prussia over Austria at Sadowa as the triumph 
of the Prussian schoolmaster, meaning that the Prussian 
army was the more intelligent. Moreover, the trades-unions, 
representing workingmen, favored popular education. 

The Gladstone ministry carried, in 1870, a bill designed 
to provide England for the first time in her history with a 
really national system of elementary education. The sys- 
tem then established remained without essential change until 
1902. It marked a great progress in the educational facili- 
ties of England. The bill did not establish an entirely new 
educational machinery to be paid for by the State and 



THE FORSTER EDUCATION BILL 479 

managed by the State. It divided the country into school 
districts. It did not propose to establish new schools in 
each district to be administered by the State. Its aim was 
not to provide England with new secular schools, but to pro- 
vide her with a sufficient number of schools of good quality. 
It incorporated in its scheme the already existing church Cliurcii 
schools. " Our object," said Mr. Forster, who was in schools in- 
charge of the bill, " is to complete the voluntary system, and ^^ ^.j^g 
to fill up the gaps." Each district was to be considered system. 
by itself. If, at the end of a year, it was found to possess 
already a sufficient number of schools, it was to be left alone. 
Such schools must submit to State inspection, and would 
then receive parliamentary aid. If the district were found 
to be inadequately supplied with schools of this character, 
then a new agency was to be created. Local school boards 
were to be elected with power to establish new schools, and 
to levy local taxes for the purpose. 

Thus there would be two sets of schools, church schools 
supported by voluntary contributions, by grants of Parlia- Board 
ment, and by children's tuition fees, and " board schools," ggtablished 
supported by grants of Parliament, tuition fees and local 
taxes. 

The main difficulty encountered by educational reformers 
in 1870, as had been the case before, and as is the case 
to-day, was the question of religious instruction. There The 
was a party among the Liberals who wished to have edu- *^f ^ ygii^jo^g 
cation entirely secular, but this party was in the minor- instruction, 
ity. The supporters of the voluntary schools wished to 
have those schools permitted to teach the tenets of the de- 
nomination as they had done in the past. There was in- 
serted in this bill a so-called conscience clause, providing that The 
where voluntary schools included as a part of their teaching 
instruction in the religious beliefs of the denomination con- 
ducting them, parents might have their children excused 
from such instruction. To facilitate the operation of this 
provision all religious instruction must be given at the 



480 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

beginning or at the close of the school session. Thus the 
children of Methodists and Baptists could attend an Anglican 
school without being obliged to be instructed in the Anglican 
beliefs. 

But should there be any religious instruction in the new 

board schools, schools to be supported in part by local 

taxes? A strong party demanded that these schools at 

least be entirely secular, but Parliament did not so decide. 

The The bill as passed provided that the board in each district 

Cowper- should decide whether there should be religious instruction 

Temple i i • • • • 

amendment. ®^ "^*' "^^ ^"^^ ^^ ^^ permitted such instruction, " no 

catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any 

particular denomination," should be taught.^ In other 

words there might be reading of the Bible and comment on 

it, but no instruction in any creed or dogma. Moreover, 

in board schools, as in voluntary, there should be a conscience 

clause, and a time schedule enabling parents to have their 

children excused from such exercises. 

Education tj^^ j^^ ^£ j^^q ^-^ ^^^^ establish either free, or com- 

nor com- ' pulsory, or secular education. It adopted, under the restric- 
pulsory, tions indicated, denominational or voluntary schools, and 
nor secular, allowed them to give denominational teaching, with, however, 
a conscience clause which rendered it possible, as has been 
said, for the son of a Methodist to attend an Episcopalian 
school. It permitted undenominational religious teaching in 
the board schools, but here, too, the conscience clause was 
attached. The schools were not free, but pupils were 
to pay tuition. It was held undesirable to relieve parents 
of all feeling of responsibility for the education of their 
children. School boards might, however, establish free pub- 
lic schools in districts where exceptional poverty prevailed 
or might pay the fees of poor children. 

The Education Act of 1870 was a compromise between 
conflicting views. It did not create a national system of 

' The Cowper-Temple amendment, which also provided that voluntary 
schools should receive no assistance from local taxes. 



ARMY REFORMS 481 

education throughout the land. It kept the denominational 
system and added another system to it. The bill was more 
acceptable to the opponents of the Liberal ministry, mainly 
Churchmen, than to its supporters and Non-Conformists. 
John Bright thought it the " worst act passed by any Liberal 
Parliament since 1832." Under it, however, popular edu- 
cation made great advances. In twenty years the number 
of schools more than doubled, and were capable of accommo- 
dating all those of school age. In 1880 attendance was 
made compulsory, and in 1891 made free. 

The system just described remained in force till 1902, when 
a new education bill was passed. 

Another reform carried through by this ministry, was Army 
that of the army, by the introduction of a short service reform. 
with the colors, and a longer term in the reserve. Here 
we see, as we do everywhere in Europe, the tremendous in- 
fluence of the Prussian military system, which had proved 
so victorious in the campaign culminating at Koniggratz. It 
had long been supposed that an army of veterans was the 
best. But Prussia had proved the contrary. There military 
service was compulsory but limited to a few years in the active 
army. Then the young men passed into the reserve, and 
might be called out if necessary. Military service was their 
profession for only a brief period. The Prussian army was 
consequently an army of young men in the prime of physical 
condition. Prussia's example has been followed since in 
all the great European armies. Universal obligatory service Introduc- 
has never been adopted in England, but the period of active *^°^ *^* 
service of those enlisting was reduced by Gladstone so that ggi^j-g 
the army became one of young men. 

But no real reform in the army could be accomplished 
without an additional change in its structure. Men ob- 
tained promotion in the British army by purchasing posi- 
tions of higher rank. There was a definite schedule of 
prices fixed by royal ordinance. To be an ensign in the 
infantry cost 450 pounds, to be a lieutenant-colonel 4,500 



482 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



Abolition 
of the 
purchase 
system. 



Civil 

Service 

reform. 



pounds. But the regulation price was by no means the 
actual price. So eager were men to secure these positions 
that they offered much more. Having paid for his position 
an officer considered it his property, to be sold for what 
he could get for it. He had a vested interest. Manifestly 
this system was unfair to poor men, who might be meritorious 
and able soldiers, as practically the desirable positions in 
the army were open only to the wealthy class. Naturally 
the growing democratic feeling of England, expressed in 
many ways by this ministry, was impatient of a system 
which rendered the army an appendage of the aristocracy. 
Gladstone brought in a bill to abolish purchase, paying 
present owners at the market price. " The nation," said 
he, " must buy back its own army from its own officers." 
Bitterly opposed by the officers and by their influential 
friends inside and outside Parliament, the ministry suc- 
ceeded, however, in getting its bill through the Commons 
only to have it practically defeated in the House of Lords. 
Mr. Gladstone then took a step for which he was severely 
criticised. He advised the Queen to abolish purchase by 
royal ordinance, which could be done, as the whole system 
rested on royal ordinance, not upon an act of Parliament. 
In this way the system was abolished (1871), and promotion 
by merit substituted for promotion by purchase. 

In the same session in which the military career was 
thrown open to merit, regardless of wealth or rank, civil and 
academic careers were also made free to all classes. In 
1870, by an Order in Council, the system of appointment 
to most positions in the Civil Service was put on the basis 
of standing in open competitive examinations. This system 
had earlier been applied to the Indian service. The step 
now taken was strongly opposed, and one argument was 
that it would result in eliminating the aristocratic class 
from the service and would fill all positions with a lower 
social class. Mr. Gladstone never shared this opinion, be- 
lieving, indeed, that the better educated class would have 



INTRODUCTION OF THE BALLOT 483 

all the stronger hold upon the higher positions, as has proved 

to be the case, the greater part of the successful candidates 

for those positions being Oxford and Cambridge men. 

In 1871 the universities of England were made thoroughly The uni- 

national. The last remaining religious tests, which operated versities 

only to the advantage of the members of the Church of 

JO ^ open. 

England, were abolished. Henceforth men of any religious 
faith or no religious faith could have all the advantages of 
university training and university degrees. This was another 
step in religious and intellectual liberty. It abolished another 
monopoly of the Established Church. The universities be- 
longed henceforth to all Englishmen. 

Another reform carried through by this ministry was the Introduc- 
Ballot Act of 1872. Voting up to this time had been t^on of the 
viva voce. Each voter declared his candidate in public at 
the polling place. For over forty years the question of 
making the ballot secret had been discussed. Indeed, it 
was considered at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832. For 
years Grote, the historian of Greece, had brought the matter 
up annually for discussion in the House of Commons. The 
secret ballot was one of the demands of the Chartists. But 
the movement made no progress as the years went by. The 
argument for open voting was that, as voting is a trust, 
it must be discharged in a manner known of all men, that 
thus it makes for courage and a due sense of responsibility. 
If you render a man's vote secret you undermine the citizen's 
courage, you foster evasion. This was Lord Palraerston's 
view. It was at one time also Gladstone's, who made the 
ingenious discovery that the secret ballot had led to the 
fall of the Roman Republic. But the facts were apparent 
to all the world that public voting led to extensive bribery 
and scandalous corruption. Intimidation, also, could flourish Reasons 
under such a system, and now that the poorer people were ^°^ secret 
enfranchised by the act of 1867 they plainly needed further 
protection in the exercise of their right. As Morley says, 
" Experience showed that without secrecy in its exercise, the 



484 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 



Gladstone's 

waning 

popularity. 



The Irish 
University 
Bill. 



suffrage was not free. The farmer was afraid of the 
landlord, and the laborer was afraid of the farmer; the 
employer could tighten the screw on the workman, the 
shopkeeper feared the power of his best customers, the 
debtor quailed before his creditor, the priest wielded thunder- 
bolts over the faithful. Not only was the open vote not 
free, it exposed its possessor to so much bullying, molesta- 
tion, and persecution that his possession came to be less of 
a boon than a nuisance." ^ 

It was evident that whatever the abstract arguments might 
be, the concrete ones were all in favor of the secret ballot. 
A bill was finally passed in 1872 providing for the Australian 
system in voting, so called because of its use first in the colony 
of Victoria. 

Though Mr. Gladstone was losing popularity with every 
new reform, alienating in each case those affected disad- 
vantageously by the measure in question, he still went on. 
He now approached the question of the third branch of the 
Upas tree, the system of Irish education. In February 
1873 he introduced the Irish University Bill, designed to 
give adequate facilities to Ireland for higher education. 
That the facilities were not adequate was clear. There 
were in Ireland two universities, that of Dublin, which con- 
sisted of a single college, Trinity, a Protestant institution, 
though admitting Catholics to its courses and degrees, and 
Queen's University, established in 1845, and consisting of 
three colleges, at Belfast, Cork, and Galway. These were 
entirely secular ; the Catholics called them " godless." The 
Catholics, constituting the mass of the population, desired 
a university of their own, endowed and authorized to grant 
degrees. There had been established some years before a 
so-called Catholic University of Dublin, but it was not em- 
powered to grant degrees. Mr. Gladstone proposed in 1873 
that there should be established a new university for the 
whole of Ireland, with which these various institutions and 



» Morley, Gladstone, II, 366. 



IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL 485 

others should be affiliated. The new university was to be 
amply endowed. The bill made shipwreck, however, on the 
religious difficulty. It was provided that each college might The 
be denominational and teach dogma if it chose, but the religious 
university was to be undenominational. Owing to the re- 
ligious passions involved it was held that the university course 
should not include teaching in theology, moral philosophy, 
or modern history. The colleges might teach these subjects 
but not the university. There was added the remarkable 
provision that any professor might be suspended or removed 
from his position if he wilfully offended, in speaking or 
writing, the religious convictions of any student. 

This bill satisfied no one. Catholics pronounced against General dis- 

it, saying that they wanted a Catholic university, not an satisfaction 

. with the 

undenominational one. Protestants, on the other hand, felt ^^^i 

that at the very time they were liberalizing Oxford and 
Cambridge by opening them to all, regardless of religious 
affiliations, they ought not to encourage bigotry and sec- 
tarianism in an Irish university. Moreover, the " gagging '* 
clauses were bitterly denounced. A university which should 
teach neither modem history nor philosophy, and whose 
professors should not have freedom of speech would be in the 
eyes of reasonable men ridiculous and not worth establishing. 

The opposition was very general and violent. Disraeli, 
feeling that the moment had come when it would be possible to 
overthrow the ministry, reviewed the whole record in a 
caustic speech, denouncing all its reforming measures as 
simply " harassing legislation," endangering all the institu- 
tions of England. To which John Bright retorted that 
if the Conservatives had been in the wilderness they would 
have condemned the Ten Commandments as *' harassing 
legislation." The bill was defeated, and Gladstone resigned, 
but as the Conservatives would not take office at that moment 
he came back into power for a few months. 

Not only did Gladstone's domestic legislation give offense 
to many interested sections of the population, and thus raise 



486 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

"Unpopular- up enemies, but his foreign policy was characterized by many 

ity of as weak, humiliating for England, lowering her prestige, 

particularly his adoption of arbitration in the controversy 
foreign . . 

policy. with the United States over the Alabama matter. 

The grievances of the United States against England be- 
cause of her conduct during our Civil War were a dangerous 
source of friction between the two countries for many years. 
Mr. Gladstone agreed to submit them to arbitration, but as 
The the decision of the Geneva Commission was against England 

Alabama (1872), his ministry suffered in popularity. Nevertheless, 
Mr. Gladstone had established a valuable precedent. This 
was the greatest victory yet attained for the principle of 
settling international difficulties by arbitration rather than by 
war. In this sphere also this ministry advanced the interests 
of humanity, though it drew only disadvantage for itself 
from its service. 
The All the accumulated disaffection of six years found vent 

elections of in the elections of 1874. The Liberals were defeated by a 
1874 

majority of fifty. The Conservatives entered office with 

Disraeli as prime minister and remained in power till 1880. 
Thus fell Gladstone's first and most successful adminis- 
tration, with a record of remarkable achievement in legisla- 
tion and in administrative reform. 
The Bisraeli Mr. Disraeli now found himself prime minister, chief of 
ministry. ^ party controlling by safe majorities both Houses of Parlia- 
ment. His administration lasted from 1874 to 1880. It 
differed as strikingly from Gladstone's as his character 
differed from that of his predecessor. This was owing to 
several facts. The criticisms which his party had leveled at 
its opponents, of disturbing everything by harassing legisla- 
tion, imposed upon him the obligation of leaving things alone, 
of inactivity in domestic legislation where possible, of effect- 
ing only mild reforms where reforms were necessary at all. 
Colonial and foreign affairs were the chief occupation of 
this ministry. Disraeli found the situation favorable and 
the moment opportune for impressing upon England the 



DISRAELI AND IMPERIALISM 487 

political ideal, long germinating in his mind, succinctly 
called imperialism, that is the transcendant importance of Imperial- 
breadth of view and vigor of assertion of England's position ^^™' 
as a world power, as an empire, not as an insular state. In 
1872 he had said: " In my judgment no minister in this 
country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of 
reconstructing as much as possible our colonial empire, 
and of responding to those distant sympathies wliich may 
become the source of incalculable strength and happiness to 
this land." This principle Disraeli emphasized in act and 
speech during his six years of power. It was imperfectly 
realized under him ; it was partially reconsidered and revised 
by Gladstone upon his return to power in 1880. But it had 
definitely received lodgment in the mind of England before 
he left power. It gave a new note to English politics. This Importance 

is Disraeli's historic significance in the annals of British ° * ^ 

. . . . . colonies 

politics. He greatly stimulated niterest in the British col- emphasized. 

onies. He invoked " the sublime instinct of an ancient people." 
The first two years of his administration were singularly 
uneventful. The work of the preceding six years was ac- 
cepted and left in the main untouched. Laws were passed 
in the direction of economic improvement, to enable certain 
large towns to provide laborers with better dwellings, if 
they should wish to, to improve certain Friendly Societies 
so that the savings of the poor would be more secure, to pro- 
vide a system of land registration, so that land titles might be 
more certain. 

Disraeli had said that if Gladstone had been less eager to 
reform everything in England and more insistent upon main- 
taining her prestige abroad, it would have been better. He 
criticised the party as secretly undermining the Empire, as 
believing the Empire a burden, as looking upon the colonies 
simply in a financial light as a great and dubious expense. 
In opposition he spoke of the " cause of the Tory party " 
as the " cause of the British Empire," and he declared the 
" issue is not a mean one." 



488 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

Now in power himself he set about reversmg what he j 
considered to have been the unimaginative, unpatriotic pol- 
icy of his predecessors. His first conspicuous achievement 
Purchase of in foreign affairs was the purchase of the Suez canal shares. | 
the Suez r^Yie Suez canal had been built by the French against ill- ! 
sh r s concealed English opposition. Disraeli had himself declared | 

that the undertaking would inevitably be a failure. Now! 
that the canal was built its success was speedily apparent, j 
It radically changed the conditions of commerce with thei 
East. It shortened greatly the distance to the Orient by| 
water. Hitherto a considerable part of the commerce withi 
India, China, and Australia had been carried on by the long j 
voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. Some went by the 
Red Sea route, but that involved transhipment at Alexandria. , 
Now it could all pass through the canal. About three- j 
fourths of the tonnage passing through the canal was Eng-j 
lish. It was the direct road to India. There were somej 
400,000 shares in the Canal Company. The Khedive of| 
Egypt held a large block of these, and the Khedive was! 
nearly bankrupt. Disraeli bought, in 1875, his 177,000 
shares by telegraph for four million pounds, and the fact 
was announced to a people who had never dreamed of it,] 
but who applauded what seemed a brilliant stroke, somehow 
checkmating the French. It was said that the high roadj 
to India was now secure. Financially it was an advan- 
tageous bargain. The shares are now worth more than seven 
times what was paid for them.^ The political significance of 
this act was that it determined at least in principle the future 
of the relations of England to Egypt, and that it seemed 
to strike the note of imperial self-assertion which was Dis- 
raeli's chief ambition, and which was the most notable char- 
acteristic of his administration. j 

At the same time Disraeli resolved to emphasize the Im-j 

1 

* The exact number of shares acquired was 176,603; amount paid 
3,976,582 pounds. England, therefore, paid about $113 per share (par 
value $100). The stock was quoted in 1909 at $790. 



THE IMPERIAL TITLE 489 

portance of India, England's leading colony, in another 
way. He proposed a new and sounding title for the British 
sovereign. She was to be Empress of India. The Opposi- The Queen 
tion denounced this as " cheap " and " tawdry," a vulgar proclaimed 
piece of pretension. Was not the title of King or Queen t-j^- 
borne by the sovereigns of England for a thousand years 
glorious enough? But Disraeli urged it as showing "the 
unanimous determination of the people of the country to 
retain our connection with the Indian Empire. And it 
will be an answer to those mere economists and those diplo- 
matists who announce that India is to us only a burden 
or a danger. By passing this bill then, the House will 
show, in a manner that is unmistakable, that they look 
upon India as one of the most precious possessions of the 
Crown, and their pride that it is a part, of her empire and 
governed by her imperial throne." 

The reasoning was weak, but the proposal gave immense 
satisfaction to the Queen, arid it was enacted into law. On 
January 1, 1877, the Queen's assumption of the new title 
was officially announced in India before an assembly of the 
ruling princes. 

In Europe Disraeli insisted upon carrying out a spirited 
foreign policy. His opportunity came with the reopening Reopening 
of the Eastern Question, or the question of the integrity of the 
of Turkey, in 1876. For two years this problem absorbed Q^gg^^Qj^^ 
the interest and attention of rulers and diplomatists, and 
England had much to do with the outcome. This subject 
may, however, be better studied in connection with the 
general history of the Eastern problem in the nineteenth 
century.^ 

Disraeli, who in 1876 became Lord Beaconsfield, continued 
in power until 1880. The emphasis he put upon imperial 
and colonial problems was to exert a considerable influence 
upon the rising generation, and upon the later history of 
England. But it involved him in several undertakings, 

> See Chapter XXVIII. 



490 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

particularly wars in Afghanistan and South Africa, which 
did not prove successful, and which contributed to his over- 
Fall of the throw and the temporary eclipse of his party. In the 

Disraeli elections of 1880 the Liberals attacked the whole policy of the 

Ministry. , . . ir j 

last SIX years with vehemence. The result of the elections 

was the return of a Liberal majority of over a hundred. 
In April 1880, Mr. Gladstone became prime minister for the 
second time. 
The Second Mr. Gladstone's greatest ability lay in internal reform, 
Gladstone ^s his previous ministry had shown. This was the field 
1880-1885 ^^ ^^^ inclination, and, as he thought, of the national wel- 
fare. Peace, retrenchment, and reform, the watchwords of 
his party, now represented the programme he wished to fol- 
low. But this was not to be. While certain great measures 
of internal improvement were passed during the next five 
years, those years on the whole were characterized by the dom- 
inance of imperial and colonial questions, with attendant wars. 
Mr. Gladstone was forced to busy himself with foreign policy 
far more than in his preceding administration. Serious 
questions confronted him in Asia and Africa. These may 
best be studied, however, in the chapter on the British 
Empire.^ 

Two pieces of internal legislation of great importance 
enacted during this ministry merit description, the Irish 
Land Act of 1881, and the Reform Bills of 1884-5. 
Failure of The legislation of his preceding ministry had not pacified 

tand Act of Iceland. Indeed, the Land Act of 1870 had proved no 
1870. . , ^ 

final settlement, but a great disappointment. It had estab- 
lished the principle that the landlord's ownership in Ireland 
was not absolute and unrestricted but was a kind of 
limited partnership. The tenant was to be compensated 
if deprived of his farm except for non-payment of rent, 
and was to be compensated, in any case, for all the permanent 
improvements which he had made upon the land. But this was 
not sufficient to give the tenant any security in his holding. It 

^Chapter XXII. 



THE LAND ACT OF 1881 491 

did not prevent the raising of the rent at the will of the 
landlord. The bill was not far-reaching enough adequately 
to safeguard the interests of the tenant; moreover, it con- 
tained too many exceptions and restrictions. The bill, in 
fact, proved no solution, but only the jSrst of a long line 
of measures enacted since, aiming at the removal of the 
agrarian difficulties under which the island suffered. 

In his new measure Gladstone sought to give the peasant, The Land 
in addition to the compensation for improvement previously * 
secured, a fair rent, a fixed rent, one that is not constantly 
subject to change at the will of the landlord, and freedom 
of sale, that is, the liberty of the peasant to sell his holding 
to some other peasant. These were the " three F's," which 
had once represented the demands of advanced Irishmen, 
though they no longer did. Henceforth, the rent of an 
Irish farm was not to be fixed by the ordinary law of supply 
and demand, by an agreement between landlord and tenant, 
but was to be determined by a court, established for the 
purpose. It was hardly proper to call this " fair " rent. 
It might not necessarily be fair, as the Land Court might 
lean too much in favor of the landlord, or in favor of the 
peasant. It was, however, a judicial rent. Rents, once Rents to be 

judicially determined, were to be unchangeable for fifteen J^idicially 

T . , . , . . , • 1 determined, 

years, durmg which time the tenant might not be evicted 

except for breaches of covenant, such as non-payment of 

rent. There was also attached to the bill a provision similar 

to the one in the preceding measure of 1870, looking toward 

the creation of a peasant proprietorship. The Government 

was to loan money to the peasants under certain conditions 

and on easy terms, to enable them to buy out the landlords, 

thus becoming complete owners themselves. 

The bill was attacked with unusual bitterness. Land- Denounced 

owners, believing that it meant a reduction of rents, deter- ^. ' ^ 
° , tion of 

mined not by themselves but by a court, called it confisca- property, 
tion of property. " It is a bill," said the Duke of Argyll, 
*' by which three persons are authorized to settle the value 



492 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

of the whole country." It was attacked because it estab- 
lished the principle that rents were not to be determined, 
like the price of other things, by the law of supply and 
demand. Rents were not to be what the landlord might de- 
mand and the peasant agree to pay, but were to be reasonable, 
and their reasonableness was to be decided by outsiders, 
judges, having no direct interest at all, that is, in last resort, 
by the State. The bill was criticized as altering ruthlessly 
the nature of property in land, as establishing dual owner- 
ship. The only alternative, however, was the single owner- 
ship of the landlord, that is, his right to do as he liked 
with the land, the very thing which had, it was asserted, 
occasioned the many sufferings of Ireland, and the endless 
series of coercion acts by which it had been so long ruled 
arbitrarily. The bill passed. It did not pacify Ireland, 
which was now putting forth new demands of a political 
nature and was in the full swing of the Home Rule move- 
ment. It did not bring immediate but only ultimate im- 
provement. Meanwhile disturbances, and even atrocious 
crimes, continued, evidences of the profound unrest of the 
unhappy island. 

It was Mr. Gladstone who carried through the third great 
reform act of the nineteenth century, by which England 
has been transformed from an oligarchy into a democracy. 
Tlie The Reform Bill of 1832 had given the suffrage to the 

Bill of wealthier members of the middle class. The Reform Bill of 

1884. 1867 had taken a long step in the direction of democracy 

by giving the vote practically to all householders in bor- 
oughs. But those who lived, not in boroughs, but in the 
country, were not greatly profited by this measure. In 
England there are three classes of people who have to do 
with the land. First, the landlords, the owners of large 
estates. These men belonged to the nobility and gentry, 
and had controlled the House of Commons before 1832, 
when that house was called the landlords' Parliament. Sec- 
ond are the farmers, men who rent their farms from the land- 



REFORM BILL OF 1884 493 

lords, and who conduct the agriculture of the country, but do 
not, as a rule, do the actual work of tilling the soil. These 
men were largely enfranchised by the Reform Bill of 1832. 
Third, there are the laborers, employed by the farmer to 
do his work, day laborers. Now the Act of 1867 did not 
give them the suffrage, though it did give it largely to 
the day laborers in the boroughs by establishing the house- 
hold and lodger franchise, a franchise so low that many 
workingmen could meet it. The franchise in boroughs 
was much wider than the franchise in counties. There was 
apparently no valid reason for giving a vote to workingmen 
living in boroughs and not to those living in country villages 
or on farms. Mr. Gladstone's bill of 1884 aimed at the The county 
abolition of this inequality between the two classes of con- franchise 
stituencies, by extending the borough franchise to the 
counties so that the mass of workingmen would have the 
right to vote whether they lived in town or country. The 
county franchise, previously higher, was to be exactly 
assimilated to the borough franchise. The bill passed, and 
in connection with bills enacted for Scotland and Ireland, 
doubled the number of county voters, and increased the 
total number of the electorate from over three to over five 
millions. Mr. Gladstone's chief argument was that the bill 
would lay the foundations of the government broad and 
deep in the people's will, and " array the people in one 
solid compacted mass around the ancient throne which it 
has loved so well, and around a constitution now to be 
more than ever powerful, and more than ever free." 

The franchise bill of 1884 was accompanied, as had been 
those of 1832 and 1867, by a redistribution of seats in Redistribu- 
the House of Commons. By the Redistribution Act of ^^'^^ o^ 
1885 inequalities of representation of the same type as 
those rendered familiar in connection with the Reform Bill 
of 1832, inequalities which had grown up in the last genera- 
tion, were redressed, and certain new principles were adopted. 
Towns containing fewer than 15,000 inhabitants were to 



494 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

lose their separate representation and be merged in the 
counties in which they were situated. Towns whose popula- 
tion ranged between 15,000 and 50,000 were to return one 
member only. Such were the two disfranchising clauses. 
There were some exceptions, but the result of the whole 
was the extinction of 160 seats. These were distributed 
among the more populous boroughs and counties. 

The Act of 1885 provided that henceforth boroughs with 
more than 15,000, and less than 50,000 inhabitants, should 
have one member; those with more than 50,000 and less 
than 165,000, two members ; those with more than 165,000, 
three, with an additional member for every 50,000 inhab- 
itants above that number. Thus London, in place of the 
previous 22 members, was to have 62, to which it was en- 
titled if population was to be the basis. Liverpool was 
to have nine, Glasgow seven, and so on. The same was 
to hold with the counties. Yorkshire was to have 26 mem- 
bers, Lancashire 23. The result was that the great in- 
dustrial centers, towns and counties, received representation 
approximate to their importance. 

The Redistribution Act of 1885 further applied in most 
Single cases the principle of single member divisions. Previously, 

if a borough had had two members it yet formed one con- 
stituency. All the voters had the right to vote for two 
members. Such boroughs were now divided into as many 
constituencies as they were allowed members. While pre- 
viously some counties had been divided as being incon- 
veniently large, no boroughs had been. The Act of 1885 
applied the new principle to towns and counties alike, each 
constituency returning, with few exceptions, only one mem- 
ber. For instance, Liverpool, which had previously sent 
three members to Parliament, and which now was to send 
nine, was divided into nine distinct constituencies, each re- 
turning one member; Lancashire was now split into twenty- 
three divisions, with a single member from each. 

The membership of the House of Commons was increased 



member 
districts 



PRESENT STATE OF THE SUFFRAGE 495 

at this time to 670, where it still remains. The number in 
1815 was 658. This was not changed in 1832, nor in 1867, 
but after 1867 it had been reduced to 652 by the disfranchise- 
ment of several boroughs for corrupt practices. 

Since 1885 there has been no new redistribution of seats, 
and the equality of districts, roughly worked out in 1885, 
has since disappeared in many cases. There is no 
periodical readjustment according to population, as 
in the United States after each census. To-day some elec- 
toral districts are ten, or even fifteen, times as large as 
others ; many are two or three. Constituencies range from 
about 13,000 to over 217,000. 

Since 1885 also there has been no extension of the suffrage. 
The evolution of the parliamentary franchise, which we have 
traced through the three great measures of 1832, 1867, and 
1884, has progressed no further. It should not be forgotten 
that there is no single, uniform, universal qualification for Various 
voting. A man gets the right to vote by being able to meet cLiialifica- 
one of several qualifications, and he may have several votes, ^Qi^^g. 
if he satisfies the qualifications in different constituencies 
(plural voting). He may vote if he owns land of forty 
shillings annual value, if he holds land of the value of five 
pounds by a lease of sixty years, of fifty pounds by a lease of 
twenty years, if he is a householder, no matter what the value 
of the house is, if he is an " occupier " of a house or building 
or store, of the annual value of ten pounds, if he is a lodger 
of lodgings of the annual value, unfurnished, of ten pounds. 
Some enjoy the right under the provisions of the Act of 1884, 
some under those of the Act of 1867, some even under those of 
the Act of 1832. " The present condition of the franchise 
is indeed," says President Lowell, " historical rather than 
rational. It is complicated, uncertain, expensive in the 
machinery required, and excludes a certain number of people 
whom there is no reason for excluding, while it admits many 
people who ought not to be admitted, if any one is to be 
debarred. But the hardship or injustice affects individuals 



496 UNDER GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 

alone. No considerable class in the community is aggrieved, 
and neither political party is now anxious to extend the 
franchise. The Conservatives are not by tradition in favor 
of such a course, and leading Liberals have come to realize 
that any further extension would be likely to benefit their 
opponents." ' 

* Lowell, The Government of England, I, 213-14. 



CHAPTER XXI 

ENGLAND SINCE 1886 

The Gladstone ministry fell from power in 1885 chiefly 

because of the unpopularity of its Egyptian policy, which 

will be described elsewhere. Lord Salisbury, since Lord 

Beaconsfield's death in 1881 leader of the Conservative party, 

formed a ministry. This lasted but a few months, for The First 

the general elections at the close of the year showed that ^ . . J 
'^ _ f administra- 

the Liberals would have in the new Parliament 335 votes, ^iq^^ 

the Conservatives 249, and the Irish Home Rulers 86. Thus 

the Liberals exactly equaled the other two parties combined. 

The Irish held the balance of power. It is necessary at 

this point to trace the history of this new party, which 

was destined to exert a profound influence upon the course 

of British politics. 

During Gladstone's first ministry there was formed in The Home 

Dublin the Home Government Association of Ireland, three ^^^® 

Movemeat. 
years later reconstituted as the Home Rule League, and 

demanding an Irish Parliament for the management of the 
internal affairs of Ireland. The Irish had constantly 
smarted under the injury which they felt had been done them 
by the abolition of their former Parliament, which sat in 
Dublin, and which was abolished by the Act of Union of 
1800. The feeling for nationality, one of the dominant 
forces of the nineteenth century everywhere, acted upon 
them with unusual force. They disliked, for historical and 
sentimental reasons, the rule of an English Parliament, and 
the sense as well as reality of subjection to an alien people. 
They felt that England must give them rights of self- 
government or else must rule them by coercion. The party 
grew into importance under Disraeli's administration, hav- 

497 



498 ENGLAND SINCE 1886 

ing 51 members in Parliament, who supported the principle 
of Home Rule. Their leader at first was Mr. Butt, who 
brought their demands before the House of Commons. The 
party did not wish the separation of Ireland from England, 
but a separate parliament for Irish affairs, on the ground 
that the Parliament at Westminster had neither the time 
nor the understanding necessary for the proper considera- 
tion of measures affecting the Irish. It became much more 
Charles aggressive when Charles Stuart Parnell became its leader 

Stuart jj^ 1879. Parnell was a Protestant, of Enghsh education, 

Parnell. . ' o ' 

a landowner. Unlike the other great leaders of Irish his- 
tory — Grattan, O'Connell — he was no orator, and was of 
a cold and haughty nature, but of an inflexible will. For 
twelve years he played a great part in the politics of Eng- 
land and Ireland. 

Discontented with the slow, easy, ineffective methods of 
urging Home Rule hitherto followed, Parnell persuaded the 

Adoption of party to adopt a more vigorous and defiant attitude. His 
e poiicy policy was to keep the Home Rule party entirely separate 

tion, from the other parties, and to use the modes of procedure 

of the House of Commons in order to block the work of 
the House; in other words, to resort to endless dilatory 
motions and roll-calls and speeches, in short, obstruction. 
The rules of the House rendered this possible, as every mem- 
ber could propose as many amendments as he chose to any 
bill, and could speak on those proposals as long as he chose. 
The policy was carried out by the Irish members relieving 
each other systematically. In 1879 it was estimated that 
Parnell had spoken five hundred times, and that two others 
had spoken over three hundred times each. The purpose 
of this recourse to such methods was to paralyze the action 
of Parliament until it gave heed to Irish demands, to pre- 
vent or delay all legislation on even the most necessary 
subjects until their grievances were redressed, and to show 
conclusively that one Parliament was insufficient for the 
business of both countries. The House was obliged to change 



THE HOME RULE PARTY 499 

its rules in order to prevent this blocking of public business 
by a small fraction of its members. 

In the Parliament of 1880 the Home Rulers numbered Gladstone 
63. Mr. Gladstone, still believing that land legislation .. 
would solve the Irish question, showed the intention of carry- Ireland, 
ing further the policy begun in his first administration. He 
caused the Land Act of 1881 to be passed. But the Home 
Rulers all through his term pursued him even more vehe- 
mently than they had his predecessors. They accepted the 
bill as a mere instalment. But the first three years of 
Gladstone's second administration were years of unexampled 
bitterness. The Irish resorted to every means to get their 
object, intimidation, violence, mutilation of cattle, burning 
of houses, even the murder of landlords and some of the 
Government officials in Ireland, notably Lord Frederick 
Cavendish and Thomas Burke, shockingly assassinated in 
broad daylight in PhcBuix Park, Dublin, in 1882. Gladstone 
replied by a policy of coercion. Conciliatory legislation 
and stern repression of violence were his principles of action. 
After 1883 the condition of Ireland became somewhat calmer, 
but only after a confused and bitter struggle, which had 
aroused all the hostile feelings of both the Irish and the 
English. The Irish, it was clear, were prepared to fight 
to the knife, were biding the time when they might force 
Home Rule from Parliament by holding the balance of 
power in the House of Commons. In the next Parliament, 
which met in 1886, they were in this position. They had 86 
members, all but one of whom represented Irish constituencies. 

Mr. Gladstone entered upon his third ministry February The Third 

1, 1886. It lasted less than six months, and was wholly Gladstone 

ministry, 
devoted to the question of Ireland. 

It was evident that the Irish question would dominate 

Mr. Gladstone's third ministry, as it had dominated his 

first and largely his second. This would have been so 

even if the Home Rulers had not held the balance of 

power in the House of Commons. It would have dominated 



500 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



The Home 
Rulers 
hold the 
balance of 
power 



Home Rule 
or Coercion? 



Introduc- 
tion of the 
Home Rule 
Bill. 



the Conservatives had not the Liberals won in the general 
election. Mr. Gladstone had expressed during the cam- 
paign his desire that either one or the other of the two 
great English parties should have so large a majority that 
the vexatious question could be handled without the aid 
of Irish votes. There is, indeed, evidence to show that he 
was quite willing that the Conservatives should solve this 
question if they would only honestly face it. He wished 
to raise it out of the realm of party conflict. That was 
not to be, however, and the election had resulted in creating 
just the situation he had dreaded and deplored. The Irish 
held the balance of power, and any proposals he might 
make would now be represented as simply a bribe for political 
position. Such a consideration, however, he proudly ignored, 
and it had no hold upon serious politicians of either party, 
for his noble record for fifty years gave it emphatic denial. 
This was the situation as it presented itself to his mind. 
The Irish people had expressed their almost unanimous wish 
by returning a solid body of 85 Home Rulers out of the 
103 members to whom they were entitled. Mr. Gladstone 
had tried in previous legislation to rule the Irish according 
to Irish rather than English ideas, where he considered those 
ideas just. He believed the great blot upon the annals 
of England to be the Irish chapter, written, as it had been, 
by English arrogance, hatred, and unintelligence. Recon- 
ciliation had been his keynote hitherto. Moreover, to him 
there seemed but two alternatives — either further reform 
along the lines desired by the Irish, or the old, sad story 
of hard yet unsuccessful coercion. Mr. Gladstone would 
have nothing more to do with the latter method. He, there- 
fore, resolved to endeavor to give to Ireland the Home Rule 
she plainly desired. On the 8th of April, 1886, he intro- 
duced the Irish Government Bill, announcing that it would 
be followed by a Land Bill, the two parts of a single scheme 
which could not be separated. 

The bill, thus introduced, provided for an Irish Parlia- 



HOME RULE BILL 501 

merit to sit in Dublin, controlling a ministry of its own, and 
legislating on Irish, as distinguished from imperial affairs. 
A difficulty arose right here. If the Irish were to have Shall the 
a legislature of their own for their own affairs, ought they . ^^^ ^^* 
still to sit in the Parliament in London, with power there minster? 
to mix in English and Scotch affairs? On the other hand, 
if they c^^ased to have members in London, they would have 
no share in legislating for the Empire as a whole. " This," 
says Morley, " was from the first, and has ever since re- 
mained, the Gordian knot." The bill provided that they 
should be excluded from the Parliament at Westminster. 
On certain topics it was further provided that the Irish 
Parliament should never legislate, questions affecting the 
Crown, the army and navy, foreign and colonial affairs; 
nor could it establish or endow any religion. After two 
years it was to have control of the Irish police. Ireland 
must contribute a certain proportion to the imperial ex- 
penses, one-fourteenth, instead of two-seventeenths, as had 
been the case since 1801. 

Mr. Gladstone did not believe that the Irish difficulty 
would be solved simply by new political machinery. There 
was a serious social question not reached by this, the land 
question. He introduced immediately a land bill, which Land 

was to effect a vast transfer of land by purchase from land- ^^'^^^"^.se 

Sill, 
lords to peasants, and which might perhaps involve an ex- 
penditure to the State of about 120,000,000 pounds. 

The introduction of these bills, whose passage would mean 
a radical transformation of Ireland, precipitated one of 
the fiercest struggles in English parliamentary annals. Opposition 
They were urged as necessary to settle the question once *° *^® 
for all on a solid basis, as adapted to bring peace and 
contentment to Ireland, and thus strengthen the Union. 
Otherwise, said those who supported them, England had no 
alternative but coercion, a dreary and dismal failure. On 
the other hand, the strongest opposition arose out of the 
belief that these bills imperiled the very existence of the 



502 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



The union 
in danger! 



English 
dislike of 
the Irish. 



Union. The exclusion of the Irish members from Parlia- 
ment seemed to many to be the snapping of the cords that 
held the countries together. Did not this bill really dis- 
member the British Empire.'' Needless to say, no British 
statesman could urge any measure of that character. Glad- 
stone thought that his bills meant the reconciliation of two 
peoples estranged for centuries, and that reconciliation 
meant the strengthening rather than the weakening of the 
Empire, that the historic policy of England towards Ireland 
had only resulted in alienation, hatred, the destruction of 
the spiritual harmony which is essential to real unity. But, 
said his opponents, to give the Irish a parliament of their 
own, and to exclude them from the Parliament in London, 
to give them control of their own legislature, their own 
executive, their own judiciary, their own police, must lead 
inevitably to separation. You exclude them from all par- 
ticipation in imperial affairs, thus rendering their patriotism 
the more intensely local. You provide, it is true, that they 
shall bear a part of the burdens of the Empire. Is this 
proviso worth the paper it is written on.f* Will they not 
next regard this as a grievance, this taxation without 
representation, and will not the old animosity break out 
anew.'' You abandon the Protestants of Ireland to the 
revenge of the Catholic majority of the new Parliament. 
To be sure, you provide for toleration in Ireland, but again 
is this toleration worth the paper it is written on.'' 

Probably the strongest force in opposition to the bill was 
the opinion widely held in England of Irishmen, that they were 
thoroughly disloyal to the Empire, that they would delight 
to use their new autonomy to pay ofF old scores by aiding 
the enemies of England, that they were traitors in disguise, 
or undisguised, that they had no regard for property or 
contract, that an era of religious oppression and of con- 
fiscation of property would be inaugurated by this new 
agency of a parliament of their own. These feelings were 
expressed in characteristic ways by the leader of the Opposi- 



OPPOSITION TO HOME RULE BILL 503 

tion, Lord Salisbury, and by Mr. Gladstone's close friend 
and previous political ally, John Bright. Lord Salisbury 
expressed all the contempt of an aristocrat belonging to a 
superior race. " Ireland, he declared, is not one nation, 
but two nations. There were races like the Hottentots, 
and even the Hindoos, incapable of self-government. He 
would not place confidence in people who had acquired the 
hpbit of using knives and slugs. His policy was that Par- 
liament should enable the government of England to govern 
Ireland. ' Apply the recipe honestly, consistently, and 
resolutely for twenty years, and at the end of that time 
you will find that Ireland will be fit to accept any gifts 
in the way of local government or repeal of coercion laws 
that you may wish to give her.' " ^ He added that rather 
than spend the money in buying out the Irish landlords, it 
would be far better to spend it in assisting the emigration 
of a million Irishmen. Mr. Bright's opposition differed John 

in temper, and was far more damaging in its effects. He ^^^ * 

. . opposition, 

had long been known as the friend of Ireland, as a dis- 
believer in the policy of coercion, as an advocate of meas- 
ures adapted to relieve the discontent of the people. But 
he disliked intensely the idea of a second parliament in the 
United Kingdom, which he did not think would be successful 
or work harmoniously with the Parliament in London; he 
believed a new parliament would prove most oppressive to 
Irish Protestants ; he spoke with extreme bitterness of the 
Irish party in Parliament, and its policy for the last six 
years ; he did not believe these men either loyal or honorable 
or truthful, and he did believe that, if they obtained a Par- 
liament of their own, they would use it against England. 

Bitter personalities abounded in the debate. One mem- 
ber characterized the plan as the offspring of " verbosity 
and senility," as the " foolish work " of " an old man in a 
hurry." It was evident that the Home Rule Bill had aroused 
an amount of bitterness unknown in recent English history. 
' Morley, Life of Gladstone, III, 317, 318. 



504 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



Disruption 
of the 
Liberal 
Party 



The bill 
defeated. 



The 

Conserva- 
tives re- 
turned to 
power. 



The Conservative party opposed it to a man. And the 
Liberal party was in full process of disruption because of it. 
Even before the measure was brought in, many men who 
had hitherto worked side by side with Mr. Gladstone in 
his previous ministries, withdrew and went over to the Con- 
servatives. These men called themselves Liberal-Unionists, 
Liberals, but not men who were prepared to jeopardize the 
Union, as they held that this measure would do — Lord Hart- 
ington (later the Duke of Devonshire), Mr. Bright, Joseph 
Chamberlain, Mr. Goschen, and many others. All the jour- 
nals of London, with the exception of one morning and 
one evening paper, were vigorously opposed. The crucial 
question was, how large the secession from the Liberal party 
would be? Would it be large enough to offset the Irish 
vote which would be cast for the measure ? Finally a 
vote was taken on the 8th of June, on the second reading 
of the bill. It was found that 93 Liberals had joined the 
Opposition, and that the Home Rule Bill was beaten by 343 
votes to 313. The total poll was thus enormous, 656 out of 
the 670 members of the House. Between one-third and one- 
fourth of the Liberal party had withdrawn from it on 
account of this fateful measure. 

Mr. Gladstone dissolved Parliament and appealed to the 
people. The question was vehemently discussed before the 
voters. The result was disastrous to the Gladstonian Home 
Rulers. 191 Gladstonians and 85 Irish Home Rulers were 
returned, and 316 Conservatives and 78 Liberal-Unionists. 
Thus a majority of over a hundred was rolled up against 
Gladstone's policy. Taking England alone, the result was 
even more striking. There he had only 125 seats out of 
455; in London only 11 out of 62. On the other hand, 
Scotland approved in the ratio of 3 to 2, Wales of 5 to 1. 
Mr. Gladstone did not consider that such a result settled 
the issue irrevocably. 

Lord Salisbury had said that if Parliament would rule 
Ireland resolutely for twenty years, at the end of that time 



SECOND SALISBURY MINISTRY 505 

she would be fit to accept any gifts in the line of local The Second 
government or repeal of coercion acts that Parliament might Salisbury 
see fit to give her. He was now prime minister, and in a logg.ioQo 
position to put his opinion into force. Coercion more 
severe than that of previous years was the policy adopted 
by this ministry, largely under the direction of Mr. Arthur 
James Balfour, Chief Secretary for Ireland. That the 
measures followed were stringent was shown by a statement The 
of Sir George Trevelyan that of the eighty-five Irish Na- V^^^^y °^ 
tionalist members, one out of every seven was in prison, 
on his way to prison, or on his way out of prison. Need- 
less to say, no reconciliation was to be effected by such 
methods. The exasperation of the Irish was only intensi- 
fied. Nevertheless, the system steadily applied was success- 
ful at least in restoring quiet. In 1890 it was found possible 
to relax it somewhat. 

But the policy of this ministry was not simply negative. 
The idea that buying out the landlords and enabling the 
peasants to become full owners of their farms would solve 
the agrarian question, and that the agrarian question was 
at the root of Irish discontent, was no discovery of a 
Conservative ministry. Clauses with this in view had been 
inserted in Gladstone's Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, and 
the Land Bill of 1886 was a gigantic measure designed to 
effect this on a grand scale. That measure, however, 
frightened the taxpayers by the amount of the expenditure 
involved, and, moreover, it necessarily fell with the Home 
Rule Bill, of which it was intended to be the companion 
piece. Gladstone's earlier acts had not had great effect, as 
the State had offered to advance only two-thirds of the 
purchase price. The present plan provided that the State 
should advance the whole of it, to be repaid by instalments 
until at the end of forty-nine years the peasant would have 
his land as an unencumbered freehold. Thirty-three million 
pounds were set aside for the purpose. The landlords were 
not required to sell, but the issue has proved them willing to 



506 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



Land 

Purchase 

Act. 



County 

government 

reformed- 



do so in a large number of cases. The Government buys the 
land, sells it to the peasant, who that instant becomes its 
legal owner, and who pays for it gradually. He actually 
pays less in this way each year than he formerly paid for 
rent, and in the end he has his holding unencumbered. 
This bill was passed in 1891, and in five years some 35,000 
tenants were thus enabled to purchase their holdings under 
its provisions. The system was extended much further in 
later years, particularly by the Land Act of 1903. From 
1903 to 1908 there were about 160,000 purchasers. 

A most important piece of legislation carried by this 
ministry was the County Councils Act of 1888. This 
act rendered the county governments of England and Wales 
democratic. Those governments had previously been en- 
tirely unrepresentative in character. They had been mainly 
in the hands of the landlord class, members of which were 
appointed by the Queen as magistrates or justices of the 
peace. As such they met four times a year in quarter 
sessions, and there regulated county affairs, levying taxes, 
discharging certain judicial functions, regulating the liquor 
trade, and the building and repair of highways, and super- 
vising the actions of the officials of smaller areas. County 
government was in the hands of an oligarchy. The new 
act placed it in the hands of all ratepayers, who were 
to elect county councils for a term of three years, which 
were to conduct the local administration, with the exception 
of granting liquor licenses, a function which was to remain 
in the hands of the justices of the peace. Thus county 
government was made democratic. As local self-govern- 
ment had been established in the boroughs in 1835, it was now 
established in the counties. This was one of the most im- 
portant achievements of this ministry. In 1889 a similar bill 
was passed for Scotland. Ireland lay outside this legislation. 

This ministry passed other bills of a distinctly liberal 
character ; among them an act absolutely prohibiting the em- 
ployment of children under ten, an act designed to reduce the 



THE FOURTH GLADSTONE MINISTRY 507 

oppression of the sweat-shop by limiting the labor of women Social 
to twelve hours a day, with an hour and a half for meals, ^S^slation. 
an act making education free, and a small allotment act 
intended to create a class of peasant proprietors in Eng- 
land. These measures were supported by all parties. 
They were important as indicating that social legislation 
was likely to be in the coming years more important than 
political legislation, which has proved to be the case. They 
also show that the Conservative party was changing in 
character, and was willing to assume a leading part in social 
reform. 

In respect to another item of internal policy, the Salis- IJicrease of 
bury ministry took a stand which has been decisive ever 
since. In 1889 it secured an immense increase of the navy. 
Seventy ships were to be added at an expense of 21,500,000 
pounds during the next seven years. Lord Salisbury laid 
it down as a principle that the British navy ought to be 
equal to any other two navies of the world combined. 

In foreign affairs the most important work of this min- 
istry lay in its share in the partition of Africa, which will 
be described elsewhere. 

The general elections of 1892 resulted in the return to The Fourth 
power of the Liberals, supported by the Irish Home Rulers, ^'^adstone 
and Mr. Gladstone, at the age of eighty-two, became for 1892-1894 
the fourth time prime minister, a record unparalleled in 
English history. As he himself said, the one single tie 
that still bound him to public life was his interest in 
securing Home Rule for Ireland before his end. It fol- 
lowed necessarily from the nature of the case that pub- 
lic attention was immediately concentrated anew on that 
question. Early in 1893 Mr. Gladstone introduced his 
second Home Rule Bill. Again the crucial difficulty was The second 
found to be that of the retention or non-retention of Irish ^o™® ^^^^ 
representatives in the Parliament in London. There were 
three possible methods — total exclusion, inclusion for all 
purposes, or inclusion for certain specified purposes. The 



508 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



Funda- 
mental 
objections. 



bill of 1886 was based on the first (with slight exceptions), 
and immediately the cry had been raised, and had been 
most effective, that the unity of the kingdom was threatened. 
In the new bill the third method was adopted. It was 
provided that Ireland should send eighty members to West- 
minster, but that they were not to vote on questions ex- 
pressly confined to England and Scotland, on taxes which 
were not to be levied in Ireland, or on appropriations for 
other than imperial concerns/ 

On this point the debate raged for a whole week. Mr. 
Gladstone was forced to change ground completely, and 
to propose the unconditional admission of the Irish members 
to the Parliament in London, with right to vote on all 
matters. Exclusion, as in 1886 ; partial inclusion as pro- 
posed in 1893 ; total inclusion as finally accepted by the 
ministry, these were the three possible ways of treating this 
crucial question. On this fundamental matter Lord Morley 
has written as follows : " Each of the three courses was open 
to at least one single, but very direct objection. Exclusion, 
along with the exaction of revenue from Ireland by the Par- 
liament at Westminster, was taxation without representation. 
Inclusion for all purposes was to allow the Irish to meddle in 
our affairs, while we were no longer to meddle in theirs. 
Inclusion for limited purposes still left them invested with 
the power of turning out a British government by a vote 
against it on an imperial question. Each plan, therefore, 
ended in a paradox. There was a fourth paradox, namely, 
that whenever the British supporters of a government did 
not suffice to build up a decisive majority, then the Irish 
vote, descending into one or other scale of parliamentary 
balance, might decide who should be our rulers. This para- 
dox — the most glaring of them all — ^liabit and custom have 
made familiar." ^ 



'The bill of 1893 provided for two chambers in the Irish parliament; 
the bill of 1886 had provided for one chamber. 
* Morley, Gladstone, III, 498. 



DEFEAT OF HOME RULE BILL 509 

The opposition to the bill was exceedingly bitter and Bitterness 
prolonged. Very few new arguments were brought forth ^ ? 
on either side. Party spirit ran riot. Mr. Chamberlain 
was called Judas, and he in turn called Gladstone Herod. 
Lord Salisbury called the proposal " an intolerable, an im- 
becile, an accursed bill." Lord Randolph Churchill declared 
that the Irish leaders were " political brigands and nihilists," 
and that the ministry was " as capricious as a woman, 
and as impulsive and as passionate as a horde of barbarians." 

Mr. Gladstone, who, incidentally, kept his temper, ex- 
pressed with all his eloquence his faith in the Irish people, 
his belief that the only alternative to his policy was coercion, 
and that coercion would be forever unsuccessful, his con- 
viction that it was the duty of England to atone for six 
centuries of misrule. 

After eighty-two days of discussion, marked by scenes of Passed by 

great disorder, members on one occasion coming to blows 

° ' _ ® , , mens, 

to the great damage of decorous parliamentary traditions, the defeated by 
bill was carried by a majority of 34 (301 to 267). A the Lords, 
week later it was defeated in the House of Lords by 419 
to 41, or a majority of more than ten to one. The bill 
was dead. 

Gladstone attempted to carry through various English 
measures, but here again he was foiled by the hereditary 
chamber. A single legislative reform was enacted, the Parish Parish 
Councils Bill of 1894. This established in every parish of 
more than 300 inhabitants a council elected by the taxpayers, 
and gave them certain powers of self-government. This 
was the natural supplement to the County Councils Act of 
1888, completing the process of constitutional reform which 
began in 1832. Agricultural laborers were henceforth to 
have a political training in participating in the management 
of local affairs. 

Mr. Gladstone's fourth ministry was balked successfully 
at every turn by the House of Lords, which, under the 
able leadership of Lord Salisbury, recovered an actual power 



510 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



Resigna- 
tion of 
Gladstone. 



The 

Rosebery 

Ministry. 



it had not possessed since 1832. In 1894 Mr. Gladstone 
resigned his office, thus bringing to a close one of the most 
remarkable political careers known to English history. His 
last speech in Parliament was a vigorous attack upon the 
House of Lords. In his opinion, that House had become 
the great obstacle to progress. " The issue which is raised 
between a deliberative assembly, elected by the votes of 
more than 6,000,000 people," and an hereditary body, " is a 
controversy v/hich, when once raised, must go forward to 
an issue." This speech was his last in an assembly where 
his first had been delivered sixty-one years before. 
Gladstone died four years later, and was buried in West- 
minster Abbey (1898). 

He was succeeded in the premiership by Lord Rosebery, 
whose ministry lasted only sixteen months. The withdrawal 
of Gladstone showed the many rifts in the Liberal party, 
which a leader of less prestige and less commanding per- 
sonality could not close. The party was discouraged by 
its failure to achieve Home Rule, was balked by the House 
of Lords, was divided into groups desiring various things, 
and was feebly supported by the people. Such a ministry 
could not long endure. Rosebery alienated the Irish by de- 
claring that he agreed with Lord Salisbury, that before 
Home Rule should be granted Ireland, " England, as the 
predominant member of the partnership of the three king- 
doms, will have to be convinced of its justice." 

The Rosebery ministry accomplished very little. Its 
campaign against the House of Lords was half-hearted and 
ineffective. In one sphere, where the Lords were by custom 
forbidden to interfere in financial matters, it made an im- 
portant change. England was now involved in the wide- 
spread militaristic movement, which is one of the striking 
features of the closing nineteenth century. In England it 
took the form of very largely increasing the navy, and the 
principle was now being accepted which has since become 
an axiom in British policy, of making the British fleet the 



THE ROSEBERY MINISTRY 511 

equal of any two foreign fleets combined. This Involved 
much larger taxation. In the budget of 1894, the work 
of Sir William Vernon Harcourt, the principle of graduation 
was introduced into the inheritance taxes. The tax im- 
posed by the state was to vary from one per cent, on estates 
of five hundred pounds to eight per cent, on estates of over 
a million pounds. This change was bitterly resented by 
the wealthy. 

In June 1895 the Rosebery ministry was defeated on a The Con- 
minor matter and seized the occasion to resign. Lord servatives 

rctui'iiGd to 
Salisbury became prime minister. A general election was 

at once held, which proved to be a crushing defeat for 

the Liberals. The Conservatives and the Liberal-Unionists, 

or the Unionist party, as it was generally called, so thorough 

had become the amalgamation of the two, had a majority 

in the new Parliament of about a hundred and fifty, a 

larger majority than any party had had in any parliament 

since the one chosen immediately after the Reform Bill of 

1832. This party was to remain uninterruptedly in power 

until December 1905. 

Lord Salisbury was now prime minister for the third ^^® TMrd 

time. He remained such until 1902, when he withdrew from __. . . 

' Ministry. 

public life, being succeeded by his nephew, Mr. Arthur James 
Balfour. There was, however, no change of party. Lord 
Salisbury had an immense majority in the House of Com- 
mons. His ministry contained several very able men. He 
himself assumed the Foreign Office, Mr. Chamberlain the 
Colonial Office, Mr. Balfour the leadership of the House 
of Commons. The withdrawal of Mr. Gladstone and the 
divisions in the Liberal party reduced that party to a posi- 
tion of ineffective opposition. The Irish question sank 
into the background. Much social and labor legislation 
was enacted. The commanding question of this period was 
to be that of imperialism, and the central figure was Mr. 
Joseph Chamberlain, a man remarkable for vigor and au- 
dacity, and the most popular member of the cabinet. 



South 
Africa. 



512 ENGLAND SINCE 1886 

Chamberlain, who had made his reputation as an advanced 
Liberal, an advocate of radical social and economic reforms, 
now stood forth as the spokesman of imperialism. His office, 
that of Colonial Secretary, gave him excellent opportunities 
to emphasize the importance of the colonies to the mother 
country, the desirability of drawing them closer together, 
of promoting imperial federation. 
War in ^ period of great activity in foreign and colonial affairs 

began almost immediately after the inauguration of the new 
ministry. The most important chapter in this activity 
concerned the conditions in South Africa, which led, in 1899, 
to the Boer War, and which had important consequences. 
This will better be described elsewhere.^ 

The Conservatives, resolutely opposed to the policy of 
an independent parliament in Ireland, and conscious that 
in this they had the support of the people, declined abso- 
lutely to consider Home Rule. But they proposed to " kill 
Home Rule by kindness," as the phrase ran. Rigorous 
coercion for the suppression of disorder was united with 
a Land Purchase Bill, of the now familiar type, aiming to 
facilitate, more than previous bills had done, the buying 
out of the landlords and the creation of a peasant pro- 
Irish Local prietorship of the soil of Ireland (1896). More important 
Act ^^^ ^^^ Irish Local Government Act of 1898, which aimed 

to give some measure of local self-government to the Irish 
by establishing there, as had been done in England, county 
councils and district councils, but not parish councils. 
These bodies, which were to possess considerable powers in 
the management of local affairs, were to be elected on a 
franchise identical with the parliamentary franchise, except 
that Peers and women might vote. This was, of course, no 
substitute for Home Rule, nor was it intended to be. 

The South African war, from 1899 to 190S, absorbed the 
attention of England until its successful termination. In- 
ternal legislation was of slight importance. During the 

^ Pages 541-544. 



EDUCATION ACT OF 1902 513 

war Queen Victoria died, January 22, 1901, after a reign Beath of 

of over sixty-three years, the longest known in British ^^®®^ 

Till 1 1 vicxonft* 

history, and only exceeded elsewhere by the seventy-one 

years' reign of Louis XIV of France. She had proved 
during her entire reign, which began in 1837, a model con- 
stitutional monarch, subordinating her will to that of the 
people, as expressed by the ministry and Parliament. " She 
passed away," said Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons, 
" without an enemy in the world, for even those who loved 
not England loved her." The reign of Edward VII, then 
in his sixty-second year, began. 

A very important measure passed by this Conservative Education 
ministry was the Education Act of 1902. The Forster 
Act of 1870, which had remained the basis of the elementary 
educational system of England since its passage, had 
adopted the voluntary or denominational schools, and had 
added, where these were not adequate, board schools. Both 
were to receive generally fees from their pupils and grants 
from Parliament. In addition, the voluntary schools were 
to receive voluntary gifts as hitherto, and the board schools 
local taxes levied for the purpose by the boards. As the 
years went by, the voluntary schools found that they were 
being handicapped by the fact that the board schools had 
larger financial resources than they. The parliamentary 
grants were conditioned in amount by the sums raised 
in the other ways by the two kinds of schools. Now the 
board schools could, by raising more from taxation, earn 
larger grants from Parliament, while the voluntary 
schools, relying upon private subscriptions, could not gain 
increased appropriations unless they could get larger sub- 
scriptions. While they were able to do this for a while, 
they were not able to in the long run. In 1900 the average 
amount per pupil was somewhat less than thirty years be- 
fore. They were thus at a disadvantage compared with 
the board schools. The voluntary schools, which were for 
the most part connected with the Church of England, began 



514. 



ENGLAND SINCE 1886 



Abolition 
of the 
School 
Boards. 



to demand further help from Parliament. In 1897 they 
were given an additional subsidy, which, in their opinion, 
was not large enough. Their agitation continued and re- 
sulted finally in the passage of the Act of 1902. 

By this the school boards, established in 1870, were abol- 
ished, and their powers were vested in the county and 
borough councils, that is, in the regular local government 
bodies. These were to support both sets of schools, the 
former board and the voluntary, out of local taxes, parlia- 
mentary grants continuing. In other words, local taxes 
were to be raised for denominational schools, as well as for 
undenominational, parliamentary grants, as hitherto, also 
going to both. The actual management of the former board 
schools was to be in the hands of a committee of the county 
or borough council. That of the church schools was to 
be in the hands of a committee of six, two of whom were to 
represent the county or borough council, while four were 
to represent the denomination. In other words, people were 
to be taxed for both sets of schools, but were to control only 
one. The bill gave great offense to Dissenters and be- 
lievers in secular education. It authorized taxation for the 
advantage of a denomination of which multitudes of tax- 
payers were not members. It was held to be a measure 
for increasing the power of the Church of England. The 
conscience clause was applied to all schools, as hitherto. 

The opposition to this law was intense. Thousands re- 
fused to pay their taxes, and their property was, therefore, 
sold by public authority to meet the taxes. Many were 
imprisoned. There were over 70,000 summonses to court. 
The agitation thus aroused was one of the great causes 
for the crushing defeat of the Conservative party in 1905. 
Yet the law of 1902 was put into force and is at this 
moment the law of England, the Liberals having failed 
in 1906 in an attempt to pass an education bill of their 
own to supersede it. The educational system remains one 
of the contentious problems of English politics. Mean- 



OLD AGE PENSIONS 515 

while, under the operation of the laws passed in review, Decline 
illiteracy, very general in the middle of the nineteenth ° 
century, has almost entirely disappeared. In 1843, 32 per 
cent, of the men, 49 per cent, of the women, were illiterate, 
whereas in 1903 only two per cent, of the former and three 
of the latter were in this condition. 

Since December 1905 the Liberal party has been in power. The Liberal 
first under the premiership of Sir Henry Campbell-Banner- party in 
man, and, since his death early in 1908, under that of Mr. ^ 
Herbert Asquith. This party won in the General Elections 
of 1906 (January and February) the largest majority ever 
obtained since 1832. The most important achievement of 
this administration thus far has been the passage in 1908 
of the Old Age Pensions Act, which marks a long step Old Age 
forward in the extension of state activity. It grants, under Pensions 
certain slight restrictions, pensions to all persons of a cer- 
tain age and of a small income. Denounced as paternal- 
istic, as socialistic, as sure to undermine the thrift and the 
sense of responsibility of the laborers of Great Britain, it 
was urged as a reasonable and proper recognition of the 
value of the services to the country of the working classes, 
services as truly to be rewarded as those of army and navy 
and administration. The act provides that those whose 
income does not exceed twenty-five guineas a year shall 
receive a weekly pension of five shillings, that those with ^ 

larger incomes shall receive proportionately smaller amounts, 
down to the minimum of one shilling a week. Those whose 
income exceeds thirty guineas and ten shillings a year re- 
ceive no pensions. Such pensions are granted only to 
British subjects, who have resided in Great Britain for 
twenty years, who are at least seventy years of age, and 
are not in receipt of poor relief. It was estimated by the 
prime minister that the initial burden to the state would 
be about seven and a half million pounds, an amount that 
would necessarily increase in later years. The post office 
is used as the distributing agent. This law went into force 



516 ENGLAND SINCE 1886 

on January 1, 1909. On that day over half a million men 
and women went to the nearest post office and drew their 
first pensions of from one to five shillings, and on every 
Friday henceforth as long as they live they may do the 
same. It was noticed that these men and women accepted 
their pensions not as a form of charity or poor relief, but 
as an honorable reward. The statistics of those claiming 
under this law are instructive and sobering. In the county 
of London one person in every one hundred and seventeen 
was a claimant; in England and Wales one in eighty-six; 
in Scotland one in sixty-seven; in Ireland one in twenty-one. 
An Irish Another act passed by this administration was that estab- 

university. lishing an Irish university, which Catholics would feel free 
to attend. Thus was solved in 1908 a problem which Glad- 
stone had attempted to solve in 1873, but without success. 
The Birrell Act really establishes two universities — one in 
Belfast, consisting of the former Queen's College in that 
city, this for Protestants ; and one for Catholics, to 
have its seat in Dublin, and to possess three colleges, one 
in Cork, one in Galway, and a new college in Dublin. Each 
college will, in reality, be an almost independent university, 
practically, though not nominally, controlling appointments, 
the function of the university body being that of co-ordina- 
tion and supervision only. No chapel is to be erected 
on the grounds of any college. No professorships of the- 
ology may be created out of public moneys. Such may 
be created by private gifts, but their occupants may not 
sit with the other professors on academic boards. 

The present ministry has made repeated efforts to alter 
the elementary educational system, based on the law of 
1902, but has been blocked by the House of Lords. That 
law is, therefore, still in force. 

Questions of suffrage are becoming increasingly promi- 
nent, and are apparently verging toward a further enlarge- 
ment of the electorate. In recent years the demand for 
woman suffrage has been pressed with great vigor and con- 



SUFFRAGE QUESTIONS 517 

fidence. Women already possess the franchise for most local 
elections, but cannot yet vote for members of Parliament. 
For twenty years plural voting has been denounced by 
the Liberals, who desire to restrict each voter to a single 
vote. In 1906 the House of Commons passed a bill abolish- 
ing this inequality. It was thrown out promptly by the 
House of Lords. It is likely that some comprehensive 
reform, accompanied by a redistribution of seats, will be 
effected in the near future. 



CHAPTER XXII 

THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN THE NINETEENTH 

CENTURY 

The We have thus far concerned ourselves with the history 

expansion of the European continent. But one of the most remark- 
able features of the nineteenth century was the reaching 
out of Europe for the conquest of the world, and the opening 
of the present century sees the process far advanced. What 
is known as European civilization is in its characteristic 
features becoming the civilization of all countries and con- 
tinents. The age of world politics, of world commerce, 
has come ; the age of a common world culture appears 
likely ultimately to prevail. This extraordinary transfor- 
The growth mation is being eifected by a variety of agencies, by the 

CO oniai buJl^inff up of ffreat colonial empires, by conscious and 
empires. ,.... f ^ J ^ 

resolute imitation of Europe on the part of countries like 

Japan and, very recently, by China, India, and Persia; by 
the elaboration of a marvelous economic life, each decade 
making enormous strides, of which every nation and country 
are necessary parts, bound securely together in the mesh 
of reciprocal needs and advantages. Peoples may no longer 
live in splendid or inglorious isolation, even if they wish 
to. European nations dominate directly immense regions 
of the world outside of Europe, having taken their destinies 
in charge. European civilization is acting as a powerful 
dissolvent of other inferior or less complex civilizations. 
The nineteenth century was not only a century of nation 
building, as we have seen, but of empire building on a colos- 
sal scale. A movement so vast in its sweep, so varied 
in its manifestations, so momentous in its inevitable con- 

518 



THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN 1815 519 

sequences, merits careful study. Of the forces furthering 
this evolution undoubtedly the most important is the British 
Empire. 

At the close of the eighteenth century England possessed 
in the new world, Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, 
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and a 
large vague region known as the Hudson Bay territory; 
Jamaica, and other West Indian islands ; in Australia, a strip 
of the eastern coast ; in India, the Bengal or lower Ganges 
region, Bombay, and strips along the eastern and western 
coasts. The most important feature of her colonial policy 
had been her elimination of France as a rival, from whom she 
had taken in the Seven Years' War almost all of her North 
American and East Indian possessions. This Empire she in- 
creased during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, 
largely at the expense of France and Holland, the ally of 
France. Thus she acquired the Cape of Good Hope, Guiana 
in South America, Tobago, Trinidad, and St. Lucia, Mauri- 
tius in the Pacific, and the large island of Ceylon. In the 
Mediterranean she acquired Malta. She also obtained Heli- 
goland, and the protectorate of the Ionian Islands. 

Since 1815 her Empire has been vastly augmented by a Vast 
long series of wars, and by the natural advance of her growth of 
colonists over countries contiguous to the early settlements, jij^piyg 
as in Canada and Australia. Her Empire lies in every since 1815. 
quarter of the globe. 

INDIA 

The acquisition of India, a world in itself, for the British 
crown was the work of a private commercial organization, 
the East India Company, which was founded in the six- 
teenth century and given a monopoly of the trade with 
India. This company established trading stations in various 
parts of that peninsula. Coming into conflict with the 
French, and mixing in the quarrels of the native princes, it 
succeeded in winning direct control of large sections, and 



520 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 

indirect control of others by assuming protectorates over 
certain of the princes, who allied themselves with the English 
and were left on their thrones. This commercial company 
became invested with the government of these acquisitions, 
under the provisions of laws passed by the English Parliament 
at various times. In the nineteenth century the area of 
British control steadily widened, until it became complete. 
Overthrow Its progress was immensely furthered by the overthrow, after 

of the a long and intermittent war, of the Mahratta confederacy, 

Mahratta i . j? t j- • j • jl- j. i j 

- a loose union oi Indian princes dominating central and 

western India. This confederacy was finally conquered in 
a war which lasted from 1816 to 1818, when a large part of 
its territories were added directly to the English possessions, 
and other parts were left under their native rulers who, how- 
ever, were brought effectively under English control by being 
obliged to conform to English policy, to accept English 
Residents at their courts, whose advice they were practically 
compelled to follow, and by putting their native armies under 
British direction. Such is the condition of many of them 
at the present day. 
Annexation The English also advanced to the north and northwest, 
of the from Bengal. One of their most important annexations 

was that of the Punjab, an immense territory on the Indus, 
taken as a result of two difficult wars (1845 to 1849), and 
the Oudh province, one of the richest sections of India, lying 
between the Punjab and Bengal, annexed in 1856. 

The steady march of English conquest aroused a bitter 
feeling of hostility to the English, which came to a head in 
the famous Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, which for a time threat- 
ened the complete overthrow of the British in northern India. 
There were various causes of this insurrection: the bitter 
discontent of the deposed princes and their adherents, who 
sent out emissaries to stir up hatred against the intruders ; 
the fear of other princes that their turn might come; the 
introduction of railways and telegraphs, represented by the 
priests as an attack upon their religion; rumors that the 



THE MUTINY IN INDIA 521 

English intended to force Christianity upon the people and 
destroy their religion and civilization; the attempts to 
stamp out the custom of female infanticide; a prophecy of 
the soothsayers that English domination was destined to 
end on the hundredth anniversary of its beginning at the 
battle of Plassey (1757). 

English domination rested on military force, and in the The Indian 
main upon the native Indian soldiers. There were in India ^ ^^^' 
in 1857 about 45,000 Enghsh troops, and over 250,000 
native soldiers, the Sepoys. In that year a mutiny broke 
out among the Sepoys of the Ganges provinces in northern 
India. The immediate occasion was the introduction of a 
new rifle, or rather of the paper-covered cartridges for it, 
which were lubricated, it was alleged, with the fat of cows 
and pigs. One end of the cartridges had to be bitten by the 
teeth before being put into the barrel. This outraged the re- 
ligious feelings of the Hindus, who regarded the cow as 
a sacred animal, and of the Mohammedans, who regarded 
the pig as unclean, the lard as contaminating. The English 
tried to dispel the rumor by publishing a formula of the 
grease used, and ordering officers to assure the soldiers that 
these ingredients were not employed, but their efforts were 
unavailing. A cavalry regiment refused to receive the new 
munitions, some of its members were sentenced to ten years' 
imprisonment, their comrades began an insurrection to save 
them, and the insurrection spread swiftly. The native sol- 
diery seized Delhi, the ancient capital of the Moguls, Luck- 
now, Cawnpore, and other places, massacring with barbarous 
cruelty large numbers of men, women, and children. Shortly 
all northern India seemed lost. 

The English took a fearful and decisive revenge. Many 
of the Sepoys remained loyal, European troops were inished 
to the scene of the disturbance, and the insurrection was 
crushed. Beside themselves with rage and terrified by the 
narrowness of the escape, the English meted out ferocious 
punishment. Hundreds were shot in cold blood, without trial, 



522 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Change in 
the govern- 
ment of 
India. 



The vast 
population 
of India. 



The 

population 
not homo- 
genous. 



and thousands were hanged after trials that were a travesty 
of justice. Many were fastened to the mouths of cannon 
and blown to pieces. 

Since this mutiny jSfty years ago no attempts have been 
made to overthrow English control. One important con- 
sequence was that in 1858 the government of India was 
transferred to the Crown from the private company which 
had conducted it for a century. It passed under the direct 
authority of England. In 1876, as we have seen, India 
was declared an empire, and Queen Victoria assumed the 
title Empress of India, January 1, 1877. This fact was of- 
ficially announced in India by Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, to 
an imposing assembly of the ruling princes. 

An empire it surely is, with its three hundred million in- 
habitants. A Viceroy stands at the head of the government. 
There is a Secretary for India in the British Ministry. The 
government is largely carried on by the highly organized 
Civil Service of India, and is in the hands of about eleven 
hundred Englishmen. About 220 millions of people are 
under the direct control of Great Britain ; about 67 millions 
live in native states under native rulers, the " Protected 
Princes of India," of whom there were, a few years ago, 
nearly seven hundred. For all practical purposes, how- 
ever, these princes must follow the advice of English officials, 
or Residents, stationed in their capitals. 

" The people of India," says President Lowell, " are not 
a nation, but a conglomerate of many different races and 
religions, often side by side in the same place, yet unmixed 
and sharply separate. It is this, as Seeley pointed out in 
his ' Expansion of England,' that has enabled the British to 
conquer and hold the country. If the inhabitants could act 
together, and were agreed in wanting independence, they 
could get it. In short, if they were capable of national self- 
government, the English would live on a volcano, and their 
occupation would be brief. The Mutiny was suppressed be- 
cause it was not universal. The Sikhs helped to put down 



Colonial 



WestLongiltux e from (ireem/t icli 

Possi:ssio:NS 



oWthe 

POWERS 
IN 1815 




Brifi.s; 
Spank 
Bams, 



< 



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA 523 

the Sepoys ; and so long as large sections of the people dis- 
trust one another more than they do the English, disaffection 
has little chance of achieving any notable result." ^ 

Not only has England completed her control of India in Annexation 
the nineteenth century, but«she has added countries round °^^ ^""^ 
about India, Burma toward the east, and, toward the west, Baluckistan. 
Baluchistan, a part of which has been annexed outright, and 
the remainder brought under a protectorate. She has also 
imposed a kind of protectorate upon Afghanistan, as a re- 
sult of two Afghan wars (1839-42 and 1878-80). 

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA 
In 1815, as already stated. Great Britain possessed, on the 
continent of North America, six colonies: Upper Canada, 
Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward 
Island, and Newfoundland ; and the Hudson Bay Company's 
territories stretched to the north and northwest with unde- 
fined boundaries. The total population of these colonies was 
about 460,000. The colonies were entirely separate from 
each other. Each had its own government, and its relations 
were not with the others, but with England. The oldest 
and most populous was Lower Canada, which included Mont- 
real and Quebec and the St. Lawrence valley. It was the 
French colony conquered by England in 1763. Its popula- 
tion was French-speaking, and Roman Catholic in religion. 

The two most important of these colonies were Lower Upper and 
Canada, largely French, and Upper Canada, entirely Eng- ^^^^^^ 
lish. Each had received a constitution in 1791, modeled 
along lines familiar to Englishmen at home. There was 
a Governor appointed by the monarch, an Executive Council, 
appointed by the same authority and corresponding to the 
cabinet, a Legislative Council, likewise appointed by the 
Crown and for life, intended as the nearest approach to the 
House of Lords possible in a frontier country, and a House 
of Assembly, the members of which were elected by the people. 
» Lowell, The Government of England, II, 434-425. 



524 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Constitu- 
tional 
difficulties 
in Upper 
Canada. 



In lower 
Canada. 



Neither in Upper nor in Lower Canada did the constitu- 
tion work well. In Upper Canada there were perpetual 
conflicts between the two Houses on the one hand, and the 
Governor on the other. The Governor could virtually veto 
the actions of the legislature, and considered himself re- 
sponsible primarily to the English Government, not to the 
people of the province. He consulted the Executive Coun- 
cil only infrequently, and followed its opinion only when he 
chose to. What the two Houses were constantly struggling 
for was the creation of an executive, responsible, not to 
the monarch in England, but to themselves, and to this 
end they wished to make the Executive Council resemble 
the ministry in England. This struggle between executive 
and legislature was the fundamental problem in this prov- 
ince, which had, however, other grievances, such as the prac- 
tical monopoly in office-holding which a few families had 
succeeded in acquiring. 

In Lower or French Canada there was also a constitu- 
tional struggle, embittered by race animosity. The French, 
overwhelmingly predominant in population, controlled only 
the House of Assembly, while the three other branches of 
the Government, the Governor, Executive Council, and Legis- 
lative Council, all appointive and not elective, were con- 
trolled by the English element. The chief struggle in this 
colony was between the Assembly, controlled by the French, 
and the Legislative Council, controlled by the English. The 
French demanded that the Legislative Council be made 
elective, expecting, if that were done, to have the majority 
in it. They demanded also that the executive, with the 
exception of the Governor, be made responsible to the legis- 
lature. The French, unable to get control of any branch 
of the government except the Assembly, resolved to use this 
to force the concessions they desired. They refused to 
make the appropriations necessary for the running of the 
government. Year after year, from 1882 on, no moneys 
were voted for the payment of judges and civil officers. The 



THE DURHAM MISSION 525 

struggle was similar to that witnessed in the eighteenth 

century in many of the thirteen colonies to the south. 

The conflict was between the representative and the non- The 

representative parts of the government. It was funda- ^° °^^^ ^ 

. . . , , . , desire 

mentally a constitutional question. The colonies did not self-govem- 

possess complete legislative power, as the upper chamber, ment. 
non-elective, could block the lower chamber, representing 
the people. Nor had the legislature, as a whole, what it had 
in England — control over the executive. " The colonies 
have the mockeries, the shadows of English institutions, 
not the realities ; the names, not the substances," said Lord 
Durham later. The principle which makes the English 
system of government workable, responsibility of the ex- 
ecutive to the legislature, was lacking. The people had no 
efficient control of their rulers. England had not yet solved 
the problem of colonial government. 

In 1837 disaffection had reached such a point that revolu- The 

tionary movements broke out in both colonies. These were eas- rebellion of 

1837 
ily suppressed by the Canadian authorities without help from 

England, but the grievances of the colonists still remained. 

The English Government, thoroughly alarmed at the The Durham 
danger of the loss of another empire, adopted the part of Mission, 
discretion and sent out to Canada a commissioner to study 
the grievances of the colonists. The man chosen was Lord 
Durham, whose part in the reform of 1832 had been brilliant. 
Durham was in Canada five months. His acts were vehe- 
mently criticised in Parliament, the ministry, which had 
appealed to him to undertake the mission, did not loyally 
support him, and he shortly returned to England, humiliated 
and in official disgrace, the victim of the party and personal 
politics of England. He had " marred a career, but made a xord 
nation." The Durham Report, submitted to Parliament on Burham's 
his return, entitles him to the rank of the greatest colonial ^®P°"' 
statesman in British history. It contained a full description 
of the situation in Canada, and proposed sweeping changes 
in colonial policy. 



526 BRITISH EMPIRE IN' XINETEEyTH CENTURY 



Tie 
siDle. 



respoasiDli- 

ity. 



Kxamfning the history of the six proTiiices, Lord Dur- 
ham declared " that the natural state of govenunent in 
all these colonies is that of collision between the executiye 
and the representative body." He pointed out that the 
executive was irresponsible, and asked how long Englishmen 
at home would tolerate a ministry not in sympathy with 
the majority of the House of Commons. Such ministries 
were the common occurrence in Canada. '' It is diScult," 
he declared, " to understand how any English statesman 
could have nnagined that representative and irresponsible 
government could be successfully combiued." He also de- 
clared that the situation in Canada " was the unavoidable 
result of a system which stinted the popular branch of the 
legislature of the necessary privileges of a representative 
body." The Assembly in Lower Canada had been con- 
ducting " a constant warfare with the executive, for the 
purpose of obtaining the powers inherent in a representative 
body by the very nature' of representative government." 

Fox had said that " the only method of retaining distant 
colonies with advantage, is to enable them to govern them- 
selves." This was what Lord Durham now proposed, namely, 
the introduction of complete ministerial responsibility to the 
popular chamber- " The Crown must consent to carry on 
the government by means of those in whom the represent- 
ative members have confidence." '"' That sounds like a tru- 
ism now," says Lord Durham's biographer. " but it was the 
first recognition by a responsible statesman of the principle 
of self-government in the colonies." ^ 

No wonder then that this Report has been called " the 
Magna Charta of the Colonies," the " most valuable docu- 
ment in the English language on the subject of colonial 
policy," the " text book of every advocate of colonial free- 
dom in all parts of the globe," that it is asserted to have 
" broadened once for all the lines of constructive statesman- 
ship in all that relates to the colonial policy of England." 
^B-eid, life and Letters of Lord Durham, II, 314. 



MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY 527 

Lord Durham believed also in a federal union of all the Durham 

British colonies of North America but, recoffnizina; that the , ^ 

® , *=• federation. 

idea was premature, he recommended the union of Upper 
and Lower Canada into a single colony with a single govern- 
ment. This he also thought would have the advantage of 
putting the English, the more progressive element, in a 
majority in the united colony. 

Durham's recommendations were not immediately followed 
as they seemed to many Englishmen to render the colonies 
independent. In 1840, however, a bill was passed carrying 
out the latter suggestion of a fusion of Ontario and Quebec, 
Upper and Lower Canada, under a single government, the 
Assembly to have larger powers than previously. But the 
essential feature of Durham's report, ministerial responsi- 
bility, was not provided for in the law, and, as a matter of 
fact, during the next seven years the Governors did not act 

upon the principle that the Executive Council was to do „. . ^ . , 

^ , . . . . Ministenal 

as the majority of the Assembly wished. This vital and, as responsibil- 

far as the colonies were concerned, revolutionary principle ity finally 
was adopted in 1847 by Lord Elgin, the Governor of Can- i^^troduced. 
ada and the son-in-law of Lord Durham, who chose as 
members of the Executive Council members of the French 
party then in majority in the Assembly, an act very un- 
popular with the English, and leading to a riot in which the 
mob attacked the Governor's carriage and set fire to the 
Parliament building. Elgin adhered to his resolution, how- 
ever, and the principle of ministerial responsibility was thus 
introduced, and has since been constantly maintained. It was 
custom, however, not law. It spread rapidly to the other 
colonies of Great Britain, which were chiefly of English 
stock and were therefore considered capable of self-govern- 
ment. Responsible government was granted to Nova Scotia 
and New Brunswick in 1848, to Prince Edward Island in 
1851, to New Zealand in 1854, and within the next two years 
to New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, 
and Newfoundland; to Queensland in 1859; to British Co- 



of Canada, 
1867 



528 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 

lumbia in 1871 ; to Cape Colony in 1872 ; to Western Aus- 
tralia in 1890, and Natal in 1893; to Transvaal Colony in 
1906, and Orange River Colony in 1907. 

DOMINION OF CANADA 

The Act of 1840, based largely upon Durham's Report, 
had united Upper and Lower Canada, or Ontario and 
Quebec, into one colony, had swept away the two legislatures 
and established a single one for the united colony. This 
union of two colonies so very dissimilar, the one English, 
the other largely French, did not work smoothly, and there 
was a strong feeling that each part should have a legislature 
of its own for purely local purposes. 
Founding Lord Durham had also suggested federation of all the 

o ommion JvJqj.j^}^ American colonies as a final settlement. Various 
reasons prevented this for many years, among others the 
very defective means of communication, but the desire for 
federation gradually increased. 

The growth of population, the improvement of ways of 
communication by the building of railroads, the example 
of the successful federation across the border to the south, 
and the possible danger of attack from that side, as sug- 
gested by the Fenian movement and the Alabama conten- 
tions, all caused Canadian public opinion to express itself 
in favor of union. The English Parliament was therefore 
merely voicing Canadian sentiment when in 1867 it passed 
the British North America Act. Indeed, that act had been 
drawn up in Canada and was ratified by \he English Par- 
liament without change. By it Upper and Lower Canada, 
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were joined into a con- 
federation called the Dominion of Canada. There was to be 
a central or federal parliament sitting in Ottawa. There 
were also to be local or provincial legislatures in each prov- 
ince to legislate for local affairs. Questions affecting the 
whole Dominion were reserved for the Dominion Parliament. 
The central or Dominion Parhament was to consist of a 



British 
Hortli 
America 
Act. 



THE DOMINION OF CANADA 529 

Senate and a House of Commons. The Senate was to be Tlie 
composed of seventy members nominated for life bv the ""'^^^^^^ 
Governor-General, himself appointed by the monarch, and 
representing the Crown. The House of Commons was to be 
elected by the people. In some respects the example of the 
English Government was followed in the constitution, in 
others that of the United States. This federation differs 
from ours in one very important particular. By our con- 
stitution certain definite powers are granted the federal gov- 
ernment. All others are vested either in the states or the 
people of the states. In the Dominion certain powers are 
granted to the provinces. All others are vested in the federal 
government. 

Though the Dominion began with only four provinces Growth of 
provision was made for the possible admission of others. *^® Domin- 
Manitoba was admitted in 1870, British Columbia in 1871, 
Prince Edward Island in 1873. 

In 1846, by the settlement of the Oregon dispute, the 
line dividing the English possessions from the United States 
was extended to the Pacific Ocean, and in 1869 the Dominion 
acquired by purchase (£300,000) the vast territories belong- 
ing to the Hudson Bay Company, out of which the great 
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have been carved 
and admitted into the union (1905). The Dominion now 
includes all of British North America except the island of 
Newfoundland, which has steadily refused to join. It thus 
extends from ocean to ocean. Except for the fact that she 
receives a Governor General from England and that she 
possesses no treaty powers, Canada is practically independent. 
She manages her own affairs, and even imposes tariffs which 
are disadvantageous to the mother country. That she has 
imperial as well as local patriotism, however, was shown strik- 
ingly in her support of England in the recent South African 
war. She sent Canadian regiments thither at her own ex- 
pense to co-operate in an enterprise not closely connected 
with her own fortunes. 



530 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



The 

Canadian 
Pacific 
Eailway. 



The founding of the Canadian union in 1867 rendered 
possible the construction of a great transcontinental railway, 
the Canadian Pacific, built between 1881 and 1885. This 
has in turn reacted upon the Dominion binding the different 
provinces together, and contributing to the remarkable de- 
velopment of the west. At present another transcontinental 
railway is being built farther to the north. Canada is con- 
nected by steamship lines with Europe and with Japan and 
Australia. Her population has increased from less than 
five hundred thousand in 1815 to more than five million. 
Her prosperity has grown immensely, and her economic 
life is becoming more varied. Largely an agricultural and 
timber producing country, manufactures are now developing 
under the stimulus of protective tariffs, and her vast mineral 
resources are in process of rapid development. 



AUSTRALIA 



Early 
explora- 
tions. 



An eminent English historian. Sir Spencer Walpole, has 
written that " the greatest fact in the history of England 
is that she is the mother of the United States. It may be 
similarly added, that the greatest fact in the history of the 
nineteenth century is the foundation of a new Britain — which 
may eventually prove a greater Britain — in the Southern 
Hemisphere." ^ 

Whether Australia will prove a greater Britain or not, 
only the future can show, but the opening of the twentieth 
century sees a new " colonial nation " in existence, prosper- 
ous, energetic, ambitious. The creation of that new empire 
has been the work of the nineteenth century, an empire nearly 
as extensive territorially as the United States or Canada, 
about three-fourths as large as Europe, and inhabited almost 
entirely by a population of English descent. 

No systematic exploration of this southern continent. 
Terra Australis, was undertaken until toward the close of 



History of England, VI, 336. 



AUSTRALIAN COLONIZATION 531 

the eighteenth century, but certain parts had been sighted 
or traced much earlier by Spanish, Portuguese, and particu- 
larly by Dutch navigators. Among the last, Tasman is to be 
mentioned, who in 1642 explored the southeastern portion, 
though he did not discover that the land which was later 
to bear his name was an island, a fact not known, indeeed, 
for a century and a half. He discovered the islands to the 
east of Australia, and gave to them a Dutch name. New 
Zealand. The Dutch called the Terra Australis New Hol- 
land, claiming it by right of discovery. But they made no 
attempt to occupy it. The attention of the English was The voyages 
first directed thither by the famous Captain Cook, who made °^ Captain 
three voyages to this region between 1768 and 1779. Cook 
sailed around New Zealand, and then along the eastern coast 
of this New Holland. He put into a certain harbor, which 
was forthwith named Botany Bay, so varied was the vegeta- 
tion on the shores. Sailing up the eastern coast, he claimed 
it all for George III, and called it New South Wales because 
it reminded him of the Welsh coast. Seventeen years, how- 
ever, went by before any settlement was made. 

As Australia was remote, it was considered by English a convict 
statesmen a good place to which to send criminals, and it colony, 
was as a convict colony that the new empire began. The 
first expedition for the colonization of the country sailed from 
England in May 1787 with 750 convicts on board, and 
reached Botany Bay in January 1788. Here the first 
settlement was made, and to it was given the name of the 
colonial secretary of the day, Sydney. For many years 
fresh cargoes of convicts were sent out who, on the expira- 
tion of their sentences, received lands. Free settlers came 
too, led to emigrate by various periods of economic de- 
pression at home, by promises of land and food, and by an 
increasing knowledge of the adaptability of the new con- 
tinent to agriculture, and particularly to sheep raising. By 
1820 the population was not far from 40,000. During the 
first thirty years the government was military in character. 



532 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Abandon- 
ment of 
this 
system. 



The 

discovery 
of gold. 



The Six 

Australian 

Colonies. 



Reasons for 

their 

federation. 



The free settlers were strongly opposed to having Aus- 
tralia regarded as a prison for English convicts. They were 
not a desirable class of immigrants, and their presence tended 
to prevent men from coming whose immigration would have 
been desirable. As Englishmen came to see that this was 
an expensive and ineffective way of punishing criminals, 
and as the free men in Australia vehemently denounced the 
custom as a stigma upon their adopted land, it was finally 
abolished in New South Wales in 1840. The custom lin- 
gered on, however, in other colonies, and did not entirely 
disappear until 1853. This question of the transportation 
of criminals was one of the important questions in Australia 
during the first part of its history, 

Australia had thus far been mainly a pastoral country, 
producing wool and hides. But, in 1851 and 1852, rich 
deposits of gold were found, rivaled only by those discovered 
a little earlier in California. A tremendous immigration 
ensued. The population of the colony of Victoria (cut off 
from New South Wales) increased from 70,000 to more than 
300,000 in five years. Australia has ever since remained 
one of the great gold producing countries of the world. 

Thus there gradually grew up six colonies, New South 
Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Aus- 
tralia, and the neighboring island of Tasmania. These were 
gradually invested with self-government, parliaments and 
responsible ministries in the fashion worked out in Canada. 
The population increased steadily, and by the end of the 
century numbered about four million. 

The great political event in the history of these colonies 
was their union into a confederation at the close of the cen- 
tury. Up to that time the colonies had been legally un- 
connected with each other, and their only form of union 
was the loose one under the British Crown. For a long 
time there was discussion as to the advisability of binding 
them more closely together. Various reasons contributed to 
convince the Australians of the advantages of federation. 



THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION 533 

They have been summarized by Mr. Bryce as follows : " the 
gain to trade and the general convenience to be expected from 
abolishing the tariffs established on the frontiers of each col- 
ony, the need for a common system of military defense, the ad- 
vantages of a common legislation for the regulation of rail- 
ways and the fixing of railway rates, the advantages of a 
common control of the larger rivers for the purposes both 
of navigation and of irrigation, the need for uniform legis- 
lation on a number of commercial and industrial topics, 
the importance of finding an authority competent to provide 
for old age pensions and for the settlement of labor disputes 
all over the country, the need for uniform provisions against 
the entrance of colored races (especially Chinese, Malays, and 
Indian coolies), the stimulus to be given to industry and trade 
by substituting one great community for six smaller ones." ^ 
Moreover, the desire for nationality, which has accom- 
plished such remarkable changes in Europe in the nineteenth Creatioa 

century, was also active here. An Australian patriotism 

-. . AustraliaE 

had grown up. Australians desired to make their country common- 

the dominant authority in the Southern Hemisphere. They wealtli. 
longed for a larger outlook than that given by the life of 
the separate colonies, and thus both reason and sentiment 
combined toward the same end, a close union, the creation 
of another " colonial nation." 

Union was finally achieved after ten years of earnest dis- 
cussion (1890-1900). The various experiments in federation 
were carefully studied, particularly the constitutions of the 
United States and Canada. The draft of the constitution was 
worked over by several conventions, by the ministers and the 
governments of the various colonies, and was finally submitted 
to the people for ratification. Ratification being secured, 
the constitution was then passed through the British Parlia- 
ment under the title of "The Commonwealth of Australia 
Constitution Act " (1900). The constitution was the work of 
the Australians. The part taken by England was simply one 
* Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, I, 478-479. 



Federal 
Parliament. 



584 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 

of acceptance. Though Parliament made certain sugges- 
tions of detail, it did not insist upon them in the case of 
Australian opposition. 
The The constitution established a federation consisting of the 

six colonies which were henceforth to be called states, not 
provinces, as in the case of Canada. It created a federal 
Parliament of two houses, a Senate consisting of six senators 
from each state, and a House of Representatives apportioned 
among the several states according to population. The 
powers given to the Federal Government were carefully de- 
fined. The new system was inaugurated January 1, 1901.^ 

NEW ZEALAND 

Not included in the new commonwealth is an important 
group of islands of Australasia called New Zealand, situated 
1,200 miles east of Australia. England began to have some 
connection with these islands shortly after 1815, but it was 
not until 1839 that they were formally annexed to the British 
Empire. In 1854 New Zealand was given responsible gov- 
ernment, and in 1865 was entirely separated from New South 
Wales and made a separate colony. Emigration was method- 
ically encouraged. New Zealand was never a convict colony. 
Population increased and it gradually became the most demo- 
cratic colony of the Empire. In 1907 the designation of 
the colony was changed to the Dominion of New Zealand. 
New New Zealand consists of two main islands with many 

Zealand. smaller ones. It is about a fourth larger than Great Britain 
and has a population of about 900,000, of whom about 
47,000 are aborigines, the Maoris. Its capital is Welling- 
ton, with a population of about 60,000. Auckland is an- 

^ A valuable description of this constitution is to be found in Bryce, 
Studies in History and Jurisprudence, " The Australian Commonwealth." 
Abstract of this in Beard, Intro, to Eng. Hist., pp. 645-662. See also 
Bright, Hist, of Eng., V, 197-199. The constitution itself may be found 
in Dodd, Modern Constitutions. On inauguration of the new govern- 
ment see Annual Register 1901, 444-455. 



RECENT LEGISLATION OF NEW ZEALAND 535 

other important city. New Zealand is an agricultural and 
grazing country, and also possesses rich mineral deposits, 
including gold. 

New Zealand is of great interest to the world of to-day 
because of its experiments in advanced social reform, legisla- 
tion concerning labor and capital, landowning and commerce. 
State control has been extended over more branches of in- 
dustry than has been the case in any other country. 

The Government owns and operates the railways.* The Advanced 

roads are run, not for profit, but for service to the people. , . , .. 

' ^ ' r IT legislatioa. 

As rapidly as profits exceed three per cent, passenger and 
freight rates are reduced. Comprehensive and successful 
attempts are made by very low rates to induce the people 
in congested districts to live in the country. Workmen going 
in and out travel about three miles for a cent. Children in 
the primary grades in schools are carried free, and those 
in higher grades at very low fares. 

The Government also owns and operates the telegraphs 
and telephones and conducts postal savings banks. Life in- 
surance is largely in its hands. It has a fire and accident 
insurance department. In 1903 it began the operation of 
some state coal mines. Its land legislation is remarkable. 
Its main purpose is to prevent the land from being monopo- 
lized by a few, and to enable the people to become land- 
holders. In 1892 progressive taxation on the large estates 
was adopted, and in 1896 the sale of such estates to the Gov- 
ernment was made compulsory, and thus extensive areas have 
come under government ownership. The State transfers 
them under various forms of tenure to the landless and 
working classes. The system of taxation, based on the System of 
principle of graduation, higher rates for larger incomes, taxation, 
properties, and inheritances, is designed to break up or 
prevent monopoly and to favor the small proprietor or 
producer. 

^ In 1908 the Government owned 2,474 miles. There were 113 miles 
of private lines. 



536 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Old Age 
Pensions. 



In industrial and labor legislation New Zealand has also 
made radical experiments. Arbitration in labor disputes is 
compulsory if either side invokes it, and the decision is 
binding. Factory laws are stringent, aiming particularly 
at the protection of women, the elimination of " sweating." 
In stores the Saturday half holiday is universal. The Gov- 
ernment has a Labor Department whose head is a member 
of the Cabinet. Its first duty is to find work for the un- 
employed, and its great effort is to get the people out of 
the cities into the country. There is an Old Age Pension 
Law, enacted in 1898 and amended in 1905, providing pen- 
sions of about a hundred and twenty-five dollars for all men 
and women after the age of sixty-five whose income is less 
than five dollars a week. 

All this governmental activity rests on a democratic basis. 
There are no property qualifications for voting, and women 
have the suffrage as well as men. The referendum has been 
adopted. 

The more advanced parties demand a further extension 
in the line of social reform ; the nationalization of lands and 
mines, of marine and coastal and intercolonial services ; 
state clothing and boot factories, flour and woolen mills, 
bakeries, iron-works, and ship building yards. The Austra- 
lian colony of Victoria has enacted much legislation re- 
sembling: that described in the case of New Zealand. 



England 
acquires 
Cape 
Colony. 



BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA 

As an incident in the wars against France and her ally 
and dependent, Holland, England seized the Dutch possession 
in South Africa, Cape Colony. This colony she retained in 
1814, together with certain Dutch possessions in South Amer- 
ica, paying six millions pounds as compensation. This was 
the beginning of English expansion into Africa, which was 
to attain remarkable proportions before the close of the 
century. This Dutch colony had been founded as early as 
1652 as a port of call for Dutch ships trading with the 



CAPE COLONY 537 

Orient. Immigrants came from Holland, and after the revo- 
cation of the Edict of Nantes under Louis XIV, many 
Huguenots joined them. These Frenchmen were gradually 
completely absorbed in the Dutch population, losing all dis- 
tinguishing characteristics. England kept the colony in 
1814 for the same purpose that the Dutch had founded it, as 
a port of call, for English commerce with India went by this 
route, there being then no Suez canal. The population at 
the time she took possession consisted of about 27,000 people 
of 'European descent, mostly Dutch, and of about 30,000 
African and Malay slaves owned by the Dutch, and about 
17,000 Hottentots. Immigration of Englishmen began forth- 
with. 

Friction between the Dutch (called Boers, i.e., peasants), Friction 
and the English was not slow in developing. The forms of |^^ 
local government to which the Boers were accustomed were 
abolished and new ones established. English was made the 
sole language used in the courts. The Boers, irritated by 
these measures, were rendered indignant by the abolition of 
slavery in 1834. They did not consider slavery wrong. 
Moreover, they felt defrauded of their property as the com- 
pensation given was inadequate — about three million pounds 
— little more than a third of what they considered their 
slaves were worth. Even that was made payable in London, 
a device which enabled London bankers to get a good share. 
For all the abolition of slavery meant a loss of property, for 
many a total loss. 

The Boers resolved to leave the colony and to settle in 
the interior, where they could live unmolested by the intruders. 
This migration or Great Trek began in 1836, and continued The Great 
for several years. About 10,000 Boers thus withdrew from ^^ * 
Cape Colony. Rude carts drawn by several pairs of oxen 
transported their families and their possessions into the 
wilderness. Some went northeastward and settled in Natal 
only to find that they were not, for their pains, to be free 
from English control. In 1842 the English sent troops into 



538 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Founding 
of the 
Transvaal. 



The 

Transvaal 
annexed to 
Great 
Britain. 



Natal, and in the following year proclaimed it a colony. 
Many of the Boers trekked again to join their fellow Boers 
who, while they were going into Natal, had gone into the 
Orange River country. Such were the beginnings of the 
Orange Free State, whose capital was Bloemfontein. But 
again they were followed. The English, in 1848, declared 
this region a part of the British Empire, under the name of 
the Orange River Sovereignty. Many of the Orange River 
Boers, refusing to live under the British flag, trekked again, 
joining those who, in the earlier migration, had gone farther 
north across the Vaal, founding a state destined to become 
famous as the Transvaal or South African Republic, and 
where it seemed for many years they would be permitted to 
enjoy the independence which they had made such efforts 
to secure. 

For, in 1852, Great Britain, apparently considering the 
Transvaal not worth annexing, formally recognized its in- 
dependence, its entire right to manage its own affairs, by a 
treaty, the Sand River Convention, and two years later it 
abandoned the Orange River Sovereignty, by the Convention 
of Bloemfontein. From this time date the two Boer repub- 
lics of South Africa, the Orange Free State and the Trans- 
vaal or South African Republic. 

From 1854 to 1899 the Orange Free State pursued its 
peaceful career unmolested, its independence not infringed 
upon. The Transvaal, too, was left in the splendid isolation 
it so much enjoyed, but not for so long a time, for in 1877 
England, under Lord Beaconsfield's administration, abruptly 
declared it annexed to the British Empire, on the ground 
that its independence was a menace to the peace of England's 
other South African possessions, as the Boers were fre- 
quently involved in wars with the natives who, once aroused, 
constituted a general menace. A delegation of Boers was 
sent to England to protest and demand the restoration of 
their independence. One of the delegates was Paul Kruger, 
who, as a boy of ten, had followed his father's cattle as they 



MAJUBA HILL 539 

were driven across the prairie in the Great Trek of 1836. 
The delegation was told in London by the British ministry 
that the annexation was irrevocable. The Boers' hatred of 
the English naturally grew more intense, and they fell to 
meditating plans for the future. 

But in 1880 Lord Beaconsfield was overthrown and Mr. 
Gladstone came into power. Mr. Gladstone had denounced 
the annexation, and was convinced that a mistake had been 
made which must be rectified. He was negotiating with the 
Boer leaders, hoping to reach, by peaceful means, a solution 
that would be satisfactory to both sides, when his problem 
was made immensely more difficult by the Boers themselves, 
who, in December 1880, rose in revolt and defeated a small 
detachment of British troops at Majuba Hill, February 27, Majuba 
1881. In a military sense this so-called battle of Majuba Hill. 
Hill was an insignificant affair, but its effects upon English- 
men and Boers were tremendous and far-reaching. Glad- 
stone, who had already been negotiating with a view to re- 
storing the independence of the Transvaal, which he con- 
sidered had been unjustly overthrown, did not think it right 
to reverse his policy because of a mere skirmish, however 
humiliating. 

He therefore restored to the Boers their independence. Policy 
but with the express reservation of the " suzerainty " of the '^^ *^® 
British Crown, a word carrying no precise meaning, but administra- 
resented in the Transvaal as a limitation upon its perfect tion. 
independence, and so understood in England. The Boers 
were allowed complete self-government with this restriction. 
Gladstone's action was severely criticised by Englishmen 
who did not believe in retiring, leaving a defeat unavenged. 
They denounced the action of the ministry as inimical to the 
welfare of the South African colonies and damaging to the 
prestige of the Empire. Gladstone did not believe that he 
should be deflected from an act of justice and conciliation 
merely because of a military misfortune of no importance 
in itself, and he considered that giving up negotiations pre- 



540 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 

The viously begun, promises previously made, would be an act 

Pretoria Qf j^^d faith. He therefore concluded the Pretoria Conven- 
tion of 1881 with its mysterious word " suzerainty." 

The Boers, on the other hand, considered that they had 
won their independence by arms, by the humiliation of the 
traditional enemy, and were accordingly -^ated. In holding 
this opinion they were injuring themselves by self-deception 
and by the idea that what they once had done they could 
do again, and they were angering the British by keeping 
alive the memory of Majuba Hill. That name came to be 
spoken with passion on both sides. 

The Pretoria Convention did not work smoothly, and 
The London consequently a new agreement was drawn up in 1884. This, 
Convention, j^j^g London Convention, restored to the Transvaal the old 
name of South African Republic, omitted the preamble of the 
Pretoria Convention, in which the word suzerainty occurred, 
and inserted a provision, which was destined to gain tre- 
mendous importance later, to the effect that " white men were 
to have full liberty to reside in any part of the republic, to 
trade in it, and to be liable to the same taxes only as those 
exacted from citizens of the republic." * 

Mr. Gladstone's biographer in summing up the history of 
the relations of England and the Transvaal says that the 
Sand River Convention of 1852 conferred independence, that 
the Proclamation of 1877 took independence away, that the 
Pretoria Convention of 1881 " in a qualified way gave it 
back," and that the London Convention of 1884 " qualified 
the qualification over again till independence, subject to two 
or three specified conditions, was restored." ^ 
The Boers The London Convention was naturally regarded as a 

desire nn- victory by the Boers, and encouraged them to believe that 
qualified in- . . '' / ... • i i i i j mi, 

dependence. ^^ ^^^^ "^^ restrictions it contained could be removed. Ine 

word " suzerainty " being omitted and " republic " being 
given them, they felt that they were once more masters in 

* Morley, Gladstone III, 45. 
^ Ibid. 



THE ENGLISH AND THE TRANSVAAL 541 

their own house. On the other hand, they Avere not entirely 
independent, as England expressly had the control over their 
foreign relations. Moreover, the phrase concerning immi- 
gration contained the germ of future trouble, which in the end 
was to result in the violent overthrow of the republic, for a 
momentous change'' in the character of the population was 
impending. 

The South African Republic was entirely peopled by The Boers. 
Boers, a people exclusively interested in agriculture and 
grazing, solid, sturdy, religious, freedom-loving, but, in the 
modern sense, unprogressive, ill-educated, suspicious of for- 
eigners, and particularly of Englishmen. The peace and 
contentment of this rural people were disturbed by the 
discovery, in 1884, that gold in immense quantities lay 
hidden in its mountains, the Rand. Immediately a great 
influx of miners and speculators began. These were chiefly The 
Englishmen. In the heart of the mining district the city ^itlanders. 
of Johannesburg grew rapidly, numbering in a few years over 
100,000 inhabitants," a city of foreigners. Troubles quickly 
arose between the native Boers and the aggressive, energetic 
Uitlanders or foreigners. 

The Uitlanders gave wide publicity to their grievances. 
Great obstacles were put in the way of their naturalization ; 
they were given no share in the government, not even the 
right to vote. Yet in parts of the Transvaal they were 
more numerous than the natives, and bore the larger share 
of taxation. In addition they were forced to render military 
service, which, in their opinion, implied citizenship. They 
looked to the British Government to push their demand for 
reforms. The Boer Government was undoubtedly an oli- 
garchy, but the Boers felt that it was only by refusing the 
suffrage to the unwelcome intruders that they could keep 
control of their own state, which at the cost of much hardship 
they had created in the wilderness. In 1895 occurred an ^^^ 
event which deeply embittered them, the Jameson Raid — Jameson 
an invasion of the Transvaal by a few hundred troopers "Raid. 



542 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Sir Alfred 

Milner's 

reports. 



under Dr. Jameson, the administrator of Rhodesia, with 
the evident purpose of supporting the Uitlanders, and prob- 
ably of overturning the Boer Government. The raiders were 
easily captured by the Boers, who with great magnanimity 
handed them over to England. This indefensible attack and 
the fact that the guilty were only lightly punished in Eng- 
land, and that the man whom all Boers held responsible, Mr. 
Cecil Rhodes, was shielded by the British Government, en- 
tered like iron into the souls of the Boers and only hard- 
ened their resistance to the demands of the Uitlanders. 
These demands were refused, and the grievances of the 
Uitlanders, who now outnumbered the natives perhaps two 
to one, continued. 

A special commissioner, sent out from England in 1897, 
Sir Alfred Milner, informed his Government early in 1899 
that "the spectacle of thousands of British subjects kept 
permanently in the position of helots, constantly chafing 
under undoubted grievances, and calling vainly to her Maj- 
esty's Government for redress, does steadily undermine the 
influence and reputation of Great Britain, and the respect 
for the British Government." Milner was of the opinion 
that the Boers were aiming ultimately at nothing less than 
the union of all the Boers, including those of Cape Colony, 
the ultimate expulsion of the English from South Africa, 
and the establishment of a great Boer state. " I can see 
nothing which will put a stop to this mischievous propa- 
ganda but some striking proof of the intention of her 
Majesty's Goverment not to be ousted from its position in 
South Africa." This claim that the real point at issue was 
the maintenance of England's position as the paramount 
power in South Africa exerted a great influence at home. 
To stop this " mischievous propaganda," which was under- 
mining British influence, the policy of the Transvaal Gov- 
ernment must be changed, and it could only be changed by 
giving the Uitlanders political power. Therefore the right 
of the suffrage was insisted upon by the English Government, 



THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR 543 

" no seliSsh demand," said Milner, as it is " asking for noth- 
ing from others which we do not give ourselves." Confer- 
ences were held in 1899 at Bloemfontein. But this demand 
the Boers would not grant, believing that it was a matter 
of self-preservation, that its bestowal would simply mean 
the handing over of the country to the foreigner. 

War broke out in October 1899. The Orange Free State, The South 
no party to the quarrel, threw in its lot with its sister '^^^'^^ 
Boer republic. 

This war was lightly entered upon by both sides. Each 
grossly underestimated both the resources and the spirit of 
the other. The English Government had made no prepara- 
tion at all adequate, apparently not believing that in the 
end this petty state would dare oppose the mighty British 
Empire. The Boers, on the other hand, had been long pre- 
paring for a conflict, and knew that the number of British 
troops in South Africa was small, totally insufficient to 
put down their resistance. Moreover, for years they had 
deceived themselves with a gross exaggeration of the sig- 
nificance of Majuba Hill as a victory over the British. 
Each side believed that the war would be short, and would 
result in its favor. 

The war, which they supposed would be over in a few 
months, lasted for nearly three years. England suffered 
at the outset many humiliating reverses. The war was not 
characterized by great battles, but by many sieges at first, 
and then by guerilla fighting and elaborate, systematic, and 
difficult conquest of the country. It was fought with great 
bravery and brilliancy on both sides. For the English, 
Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener were the leaders, and of 
the Boers several greatly distinguished themselves, obtaining 
world wide reputations. Christian de Wet, Louis Botha, 
Delarey. 

The English won in the end by sheer force of numbers. Victory of 
Awakening from the costly misapprehension of the first days *^® English, 
concerning the nature of their problem, they proceeded 



544 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



Annexation 
of the 
Transvaal 
and the 

Orange 
Free State. 



to make war on a scale absolutely unprecedented in their 
annals. No general in English history has ever commanded 
so many troops as did Lord Roberts. During the war 
England sent about 450,000 men to South Africa. Three 
hundred and forty thousand came from Great Britain; the 
others from the colonies, Canada, Australia, India, and Cape 
Colony. In the closing months Lord Kitchener had more 
than 250,000 men against perhaps ten or twelve thousand 
opponents. 

Peace was finally concluded on June 1, 1902. The Trans- 
vaal and the Orange Free State lost their independence, and 
became colonies of the British Empire. Otherwise the terms 
offered by the conquerors were liberal. Generous money 
grants and loans were to be made by England to enable the 
Boers to begin again in their sadly devastated land. Their 
language was to be respected wherever possible. 

The work of reconciliation has proceeded with remarkable 
rapidity since the close of the war. Responsible govern- 
ment, that is, self-government, was granted to the Transvaal 
Colony in 1906 and to the Orange River Colony in 1907. 
This liberal conduct of the English Government has had 
the most happy consequences, as is shown very convincingly 
by the spontaneity and the strength of the movement for 
closer union, which culminated in 1909 in the creation of 
a new " colonial nation " within the British Empire. In 
1908 a convention was held in which the four colonies were 
represented. The outcome of its deliberations, which lasted 
several months, was the draft of a constitution for the South 
African Union. This was then submitted to the colonies for 
approval and, by June 1909, had been ratified by them all. 
The constitution was in the form of a statute to be enacted 
by the British Parliament. It became law September 20, 1909. 

The South African Union is substantially a unified, rather 
than a federal state. While the provinces are preserved 
their powers are very limited. The central government con- 
sists of a Governor-General appointed by the Crown; an 



THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA 545 

Executive Council ; a Senate of forty members, eight from 
each province, and eight appointed by the Governor in Coun- 
cil, and serving for ten years and a House of Assembly, con- 
sisting of 121 members, of whom 51 represent Cape of Good 
Hope Province, 36 Transvaal Province, 17 Orange Free 
State Province, and 17 Natal Province. Both Dutch and 
English are official languages and enjoy equal privileges. 
Difficulty was experienced in selecting the capital, so intense 
was the rivalry of different cities. The result was a com- 
promise. Pretoria was chosen as the seat of the executive 
branch of the government, Cape Town as the seat of the 
legislative branch. 

The creation of the South African Union is the most recent 
triumph of the spirit of nationality which has so greatly 
transformed the world since 1815. The new commonwealth 
has a population of about 1,150,000 whites and more than 
6,000,000 people of non-European descent. Provision has 
been made for the ultimate admission of Rhodesia into the 
Union. 

IMPERIAL FEDERATION 

At the opening of the twentieth century Great Britain 
possesses an empire far more extensive and far more pop- 
ulous than any the world has ever seen, covering about 
thirteen millions of square miles, if Egypt and the Soudan 
be included, with a total population of over four hun- 
dred and twenty millions. This Empire is scattered every- The far 

where, in Asia, Africa, Australasia, the two Americas, and ""^ 

. . . Britisli 

the islands of the seven seas. The population includes a Empire. 

motley host of peoples. Only fifty-four million are English- 
speaking, and of these about forty-two million live in Great 
Britain. Most of the colonies are self-supporting. They 
present every form of government, military, autocratic, rep- 
resentative, democratic. The sea alone binds the Empire. 
England's throne is on the mountain wave in a literal as well 
as in a metaphorical sense. Dominance of the oceans is essen- 



546 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 



The 

problem 
of Imperial 
Federation. 



The 

increasing 
importance 
of the 
question. 



tial that she may keep open her communications with her far 
flung colonies. It is no adventitious circumstance that Eng- 
land is the greatest sea-power of the world, and intends to 
remain such. She regards this as the very vital principle of 
her imperial existence. 

A noteworthy feature of the British Empire, as already 
sufficiently indicated, is the almost unlimited autonomy en- 
joyed by several of the colonies, those where the English stock 
predominates, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New 
Zealand. This policy is in contrast to that pursued by the 
French and German governments, which rule their colonies 
directly from Paris and Berlin. But this system does not 
apply to the greatest of them all, India, nor to a multitude 
of smaller posssessions. 

A question much and earnestly discussed during the last 
twenty-five years is that of Imperial Federation. May not 
some machinery be developed, some method be found, whereby 
the vast empire may be more closely consolidated, and for 
certain purposes act as a single state.'* If so, its power will 
be greatly augmented, and the world will witness the most 
stupendous acliievement in the art of government recorded in 
its history. The creation of such a Greater Britain has seized, 
in recent years, the imagination of many thoughtful statesmen. 

Various causes have occurred to give this question prom- 
inence in recent years. The growth of pride in an empire, 
the like of which has never been seen before in the history of 
man, is one. The English attitude toward the colonies has, 
moreover, radically changed in the last century from one of 
indifference, or passing condescension, to one of lively in- 
terest in their welfare and satisfaction in their success. 
Again, the British Isles alone have rivals in importance now 
which they did not formerly have. During the period cov- 
ered by this book, Italy and Germany have arisen, the former 
with a population nearly as large as that of Great Britain, 
the other with one larger by half. Russia has increased 
from forty-five millions to a hundred and fifty, and in the 



IMPERIAL FEDERATION 547 

west the United States have expanded until they stretch 
from sea to sea, their population mounting from less than 
nine million to more than eighty. Relatively the British 
Isles are less commanding than they were. Another reason 
for federation is that the price paid for an empire so vast 
as the British is large, the burden heavy. Ought not the 
constituent parts, which profit from their membership in 
it, to help support it ? 

The difficulties in the way, however, of closer union are The 
various and formidable. In the first place it could only difficulties 
include the self-governing colonies, where the English stock ^^ ^ 
predominates. Thus India, with its three hundred millions, 
would be left out. Moreover, federation implies important 
concessions from those states that enter. Would England 
be willing to make such concessions herself, and if she were, 
would the colonies.'' The question cannot be answered 
affirmatively in either case. If the new and closer union is The 
to take the form of a political body in which the British P^o^^em of 
Isles, Canada, Australia, South Africa shall be all repre- 
sented, what shall that body be? Shall it be the House of 
Commons? If the colonies send representatives to West- 
minster they will be a small minority, for the population of 
Great Britain is forty-two million, theirs collectively thirteen 
million. Moreover, such representatives could vote on local 
English questions, could make and unmake ministries. We 
have here the dilemma which, as we have seen, baffled Glad- 
stone in his attempt to provide Home Rule for Ireland and 
yet keep her in the Empire. Or shall an entirely new Im- 
perial Parliament be created to which Great Britain and the 
colonies shall send delegates? What shall be the relation 
of the new parliament to the old historic one? Again, even 
in it, the colonists would be outnumbered. Moreover, shall 
Canada and Australia be forced to go to war at the bidding 
of a majority composed of Englishmen? To ask these 
questions is to show the extreme difficulty of answering them. 

But maj' not the union be commercial rather than political, 



548 BRITISH EMPIRE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 

Commercial the latter being so difficult to work out? Here we have the 
union. contrast between the mother country, devoted for half a 

century to free trade, and the colonies, ardent supporters of 
protection even against Great Britain. The most promising 
scheme suggested thus far is that of preferential tariffs, 
England favoring the colonies if the colonies will favor her, 
and some slight steps in this direction have been taken ; 
for instance, Canada and Australia have recently made some 
concessions in tariff rates to England which they do not make 
to other countries. But this arrangement cannot go far 
until England can make concessions to them which she cannot 
do under the system of free trade. Mr. Chamberlain, whose 
interest in imperial development is both broad and deep, 
is anxious to do this, and he has had much influence in 
making the question of preferential duties prominent in 
England to-day. But the election of 1906, resulting in the 
overwhelming defeat of his party, showed that England was 
far from ready to abandon free trade, as on the whole to her 
advantage, if not essential to her very existence. 

The whole subject abounds in problems too complex to 
be easily, if ever, solved. None the less it is one of indis- 
putable interest, a provoking challenge to the boasted and 
proved ability of English speaking peoples in the art of 
government and politics. 
Colonial Perhaps a beginning toward its solution has been found 

conferences, in the colonial conferences, held in recent years in London, 
the first in 1887, the second in 1897, under the presidency 
of Mr. Chamberlain, another in 1902, and the latest in 1907. 
These have discussed at length many phases of the problem, 
but have as yet accomplished little. The last one, however, 
established the imperial conference as a permanent institu- 
tion rather than as an episodic occurrence. Henceforth one 
is to be held every four years.' 

* The best treatment of this subject in a small compass is to be found 
in Chapter LVIII of President Lowell's remarkable book, The Govern- 
ment of England, many of whose observations I have incorporated in this 
paragraph. 



CONFEDERATIONS WITHIN THE EMPIRE 549 

The work of co-operation, out of which a real federal Confedera- 

.. .,1 1 uj. u • 1 tions within 

empire may in time emerge, will, no doubt, be immensely 

facilitated by the existence of the four self-governing " na- 
tions " whose rise has been traced — the Dominion of Canada, 
the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zea- 
land, and the Union of South Africa. The reduction of the 
number of units, with which imperial statesmen will have 
to deal in attempting a more wide-spreading organization, 
diminishes the difficulties in the way of federation, difficulties 
at best numerous and formidable enough. The advantages 
of the combinations that have already been effected can, from 
an imperial point of view, hardly be exaggerated. Three of 
these colonial consolidations have been consummated during 
the first decade of the twentieth century. The movement may 
proceed with accelerating speed. 



CHAPTER XXIIl 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 

Lying almost within sight of Europe and forming the 
southern boundary of her great inland sea is the immense 
continent, three times the size of Europe, whose real nature 
was revealed only in the last quarter of the nineteenth 
century. In some respects the seat of very ancient history, 
in most its history is just beginning. In Egypt a rich and 
advanced civilization appeared in very early times along the 
lower valley of the Nile. Yet only after thousands of years 
and only in our own day have the sources and the upper 
course of that famous river been discovered. Along the 
northern coasts arose the civilization and state of Carthage, 
rich, mysterious, and redoubtable, for a while the pov/erful 
rival of Rome, succumbing to the latter only after severe 
and memorable struggles. The ancient world knew there- 
fore the northern shores of Africa. The rest was prac- 
The period tically unknown. In the fifteenth century came the great 
of dis- series of geographical discoveries, which immensely widened 

the known boundaries of the world. It might seem that 
Africa, rather than America and Asia, would have been 
the important conquest of that marvelous period of human 
curiosity and courage. But this was not the case. Europe 
was seeking primarily riches, and riches were to be found, 
as events proved, in Peru, and Mexico, and India, rather 
than in the great continental mass on its very threshold. 
The age of exploration did, it is true, reveal the hitherto 
unknown outline and magnitude of the continent. Portu- 
guese explorers pushed further and further south until they 
finally rounded the southern cape, and then sailed away to- 

550 



AFRICA IN 1815 551 

ward India, so alluring with its gems and spices. Diaz, Vasco 
da Gama, are shining names in this romantic history. But 
the result was not the conquest of Africa and its introduction 
into European civilization. America, and even Australia, 
then unknown, were destined to receive the civilization of 
Europe long before that continent. A melancholy beginning 
was, however, made. No ancient civilization offered its 
riches to the spoliation of Europeans, as in Mexico, Peru, 
and India. But property in human beings was to be had 
in abundance for little effort. The African slave trade 
began, " black ivory," and stations were established by the 
Portuguese, and later by other nations for this business, 
which was both lucrative and inhuman. These posts were 
simply along the shores. The great inner mass of the conti- 
nent remained as before, unknown, mainly because of the diffi- 
culty of penetrating it, owing to its lack of rivers navigable 
from the sea. For centuries Europe, absorbed in multifarious 
struggles, whence emerged its modern civilization, paid slight 
attention to the mystery which lay near at hand. Moreover, 
it had not the means, mechanical and scientific, for the ex- 
ploration of this enigmatic and dangerous land. And such 
remained the case down to the nineteenth century, and, in- 
deed, well into it. Africa is the great field of discovery of 
that century as America was of the fifteenth and sixteenth. 

In 1815 the situation was as follows : the Turkish Empire Situation 
extended along the whole northern coast to Morocco, that ^^ ^S^''' 
is, the Sultan was nominally sovereign of Egypt, Tripoli, 
Tunis, and Algeria. Morocco was then, as now, independ- 
ent under its own sultan. Along the western coasts were 
scattered settlements, or rather stations, of England, France, 
Denmark, Holland, Spain, and Portugal. Portugal had 
certain claims on the eastern coast, opposite Madagascar. 
England had just acquired the Dutch Cape Colony whence, 
as we have seen, her expansion into a great South African 
power has proceeded. The interior of the continent was 
unknown, and was of interest only to geographers. 



552 



THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 



The 
French 
conquest 
of Algeria. 



The 

sources of 
the Nile. 



David 
Livingstone, 



For sixty years after 1815, progress in the appropriation 
of Africa by Europe was slow. The most important annex- 
ation was that of Algeria by France between 1830 and 1847. 
In the south, England was spreading out, and the Boers were 
founding their two republics. 

European annexation waited upon exploration. Africa 
was the " dark continent," and until the darkness was lifted 
it was not coveted. About the middle of the century the 
darkpess began to disappear. Explorers penetrated further 
and further into the interior, traversing the continent in 
various directions, opening a chapter of geographical dis- 
covery of absorbing interest. It is impossible within our 
limits to do more than allude to the wonderful work partici- 
pated in by many intrepid explorers. Englishmen, French- 
men, Portuguese, Dutch, Germans, and Belgians. A few 
incidents only can be mentioned. 

It was natural that Europeans should be curious about 
the sources of the Nile, a river famous since the dawn of 
history, but whose source remained enveloped in obscurity. 
In 1858 one source was found by Speke, an English explorer, 
to consist of a great lake south of the equator, to which the 
name Victoria Nyanza was given. Six years later another 
Englishman, Sir Samuel Baker, discovered another lake, 
also a source, and named it Albert Nyanza. 

Two names particularly stand out in this record of African 
exploration, Livingstone and Stanley. David Livingstone, 
a Scotch missionary and traveler, began his African career 
in 1840, and continued it until his death in 1873 at Chitambo, 
not far from the shores of Lake Bangweolo, which he had 
previously discovered. He traced the course of the Zambesi 
River, of the upper Congo, and the region round about Lakes 
Tanganyika and Nyassa. He crossed Africa from sea to 
sea in higher latitudes than had hitherto been traversed. He 
opened up a new country to the world. His explorations 
caught the attention of Europe, and when, on one of his 
journeys, Europe thought that he was lost or dead, and an 



STANLEY'S EXPLORATIONS 553 

expedition was sent out to find him, that expedition riveted 

the attention of Europe as no other in African history had 

done. It was under the direction of Henry M. Stanley, Stanley. 

sent out by the New York Herald. Stanley's story of how 

he found Livingstone was read with the greatest interest 

in Europe, and heightened the desire, already widespread, 

for more knowledge about the great continent. Livingstone, 

whose name is the most important in the history of African 

exploration, died in 1873. His body was borne with all 

honor to England and given the burial of a national hero 

in Westminster Abbey. 

Another African explorer was Cameron, sent out from 
England by the Royal Geographical Society to rescue 
Livingstone. He failed in this, as Livingstone died before 
his arrival, but Cameron made a remarkable journey across 
Africa from east to west. He was the first, indeed, to 
cross the continent in that direction. 

By this time not only was the scientific curiosity of Europe 
thoroughly aroused, but missionary zeal saw a new field 
for activity. Thus Stanley's journey across Africa, from 
1874! to 1878, was followed in Europe with an attention 
unparalleled in the history of modern explorations. Stanley Stanley's 
explored the equatorial lake region, making important addi- explora- 
tions to knowledge. His great work was, however, his ex- 
ploration of the Congo River system. Little had been known 
of this river save its lower course as it approached the sea. 
Stanley proved that it was one of the largest rivers in the 
world, that its length was more than three thousand miles, 
that it was fed by an enormous number of tributaries, that 
it drained an area of over 1,300,000 square miles, that in the 
volume of its waters it was only exceeded by the Amazon. 

Thus, by 1880, the scientific enthusiasm and curiosity, 
the missionary and philanthropic zeal of Europeans, the 
hatred of slave hunters who plied their trade in the interior, 
had solved the great mystery of Africa. The map showed 
rivers and lakes where previously all had been blank. 



554 



THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 



Africa 
appropriated 
by Europe. 



The Congo 
Free State. 



Upon discovery quickly followed appropriation. France 
entered upon her protectorate of Tunis in 1881, England 
upon her " occupation " of Egypt in 1882. This was a 
signal for a general scramble. A feverish period of parti- 
tion succeeded the long, slow one of discovery. European 
powers swept down upon this continent lying at their very 
door, hitherto neglected and despised, and carved it up 
among themselves. This they did without recourse to war 
by a series of treaties among themselves defining the bound- 
aries of their claims. Africa became an annex of Europe. 
Out of this rush for territories the great powers, England, 
France, and Germanj'^, naturally emerged with the largest 
acquisitions, but Portugal and Italy each secured a share. 
The situation and relative extent of these may best be 
appreciated by an examination of the map. Most of the 
treaties by which this division was effected were made be- 
tween 1884 and 1890. 

One feature of this appropriation of Africa by Europe 
was the foundation of the Congo Free State. This was 
the work of the second king of Belgium, Leopold II, a man 
who was greatly interested in the exploration of that con- 
tinent. After the discoveries of Livingstone, and the early 
ones of Stanley, he called a conference of the powers in 1876 
" to discuss the question of the exploration, and the civiliza- 
tion of Africa, and the means of opening up the interior of the 
continent to the commerce, industry, and scientific enterprise 
of the civilized world," and to consider measures for ex- 
tinguishing " the terrible scourge of slavery known to pre- 
vail over wide and populous tracts in the interior of the 
continent." This conference was participated in by Great 
Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, 
and Russia. As a result of its deliberations an International 
African Association was established, which was to have its 
seat in Brussels, and whose aim was to be the exploration 
and civilization of central Africa. Each nation wishing 
to co-operate was to collect funds for the common object. 



FOUNDING OF THE CONGO FREE STATE 555 

But the international chp,racter of the movement thus Inter- 
started was not loner maintained. Most of the contributions . . „ 
° _ _ origin of 

came from Belgium. Stanley reached Europe in 1878 with the Congo 
the remarkable additions of knowledge which his trip across Free State. 
Darkest Africa had given him. He was sent back the 
following year nominally under the auspices of the Inter- 
national Association of the Congo, an organization formed 
in 1879, and the practical successor of the former African 
Association, just alluded to. Stanley, hitherto an explorer, 
now became, in addition, an organizer and state builder. 
During the next four or five years, 1879-84 he made hundreds 
of treaties with native chiefs and founded many stations 
in the Congo basin. Nominally an emissary of an inter- 
national association, his expenses were largely borne by King 
Leopold II. 

Portugal now put forth extensive claims to much of this '^^® Berlin 
„ • M J £ • J- rry Conference. 

Congo region on the ground or previous discovery, lo 

adjust these claims and other matters a general conference 
was held in Berlin, in 1884-5, attended by all the states of 
Europe, with the exception of Switzerland, and also by 
the United States. The conference recognized the exist- 
ence as an independent power of the Congo Free State, 
with an extensive area, most of the Congo basin. It was 
evidently its understanding that this was to be a neutral 
and international state. Trade in it was to be open to 
all nations on equal terms, the rivers were to be free to all, 
and only such dues were to be levied as should be required 
to provide for the necessities of commerce. No trade 
monopolies were to be granted. The conference, however, 
provided no machinery for the enforcement of its decrees. 
Those decrees have remained unfulfilled. The state quickly 
ceased to be international, monopolies have been granted, 
trade in the Congo has not been free to all. 

The new state became practically Belgian. In 1885, 
Leopold II assumed the position of sovereign, declaring that 
the connection of the Congo Free State and Belgium should 



556 THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 

Leopold II be merely personal, he being ruler of both, and that the 

t^ ^ former, like the latter, should be entirely neutral. The 

Congo Free . '' 

State. Belgian parliament gave its consent, and the powers gave 

their approval. Leopold granted to the new state a con- 
stitution of an autocratic character, and in the succeeding 
years acted as if it were entirely his private possession. 
His position was that of sovereign and proprietor com- 
bined. In 1889 he announced that by his will all his sov- 
ereign rights in the Congo should go to Belgium after his 
death. This, of course, was an infraction of the Berlin Act 
of 1885 as he had no right to will an international state 
without the consent of the powers. The powers, however, 
recorded no protest, probably because the new state was 
nearly bankrupt, and they were not disposed to contribute 
to its maintenance and development. In reality the Congo 
Free State was not a free state at all, but the personal 
property of King Leopold. He possessed there practically 
unlimited power in the making and execution of laws. An 
international state became a personal appanage of the 
King of Belgium, largely because the powers did nothing for 
the Congo while Leopold gave it liberal and constant support. 
Criticism of In recent years Leopold's policy has been vehemently de- 

leopold's nounced. State monopolies have been established, and 
fl. din i n i s t rs, " 

.. monopolies have been granted to private companies. In 

the exploitation of the natural resources, particularly the 
immensely valuable rubber trees, and in the building of 
railroads, it has been asserted that the natives have been 
reduced to practical slavery. Fearful stories of inhuman 
treatment meted out to women as well as to men, of endless 
and crushing toil imposed upon them, of outrage, murders, 
whippings freely inflicted, and greatly reducing the popu- 
lation, have gained wide, and it would appear, m.aking 
some allowance for exaggeration, justified credence. The 
existence of the gravest abuses was affirmed by a commission 
of investigation appointed by the King himself. After a study 
of their report, published in October 1905, a professor in the 



THE CONGO COLONY 557 

University of Brussels wrote as follows : " An examination of 
the Congo Free State administration reveals the clear and 
indisputable fact that the Congo Free State is not a colony in 
the proper sense of the term: it is a financial speculation. 
The real aims of those in authority are pecuniary — to in- 
crease the amount yielded by taxation, to exploit the natural 
wealth of the country, to effect all that can stimulate the 
powers of production. Everything else is subordinated to 
this end. The colony is administered neither in the interest of 
the natives nor even of the economic interests of Belgium ; the 
moving desire is to assure the sovereign king the maximum 
of pecuniary benefit." ^ 

In recent years the revelations of the atrocious conditions 
prevailing in the Congo have become steadily more numerous 
and more shocking. Other powers, notably England and 
the United States, finally aroused, have demanded reforms. 

The result has been that the Belgian ministry and Parliament ^^® Congo 

Free State 
have been forced by the public opinion of the world to take j^^^^g g^ 

up this question, and in 1908 the Congo Free State was con- colony of 

verted outright into a Belgian colony subject, not to the ^^^si^™* 

personal rule of the King, but to Parliament. 

EGYPT 

Egypt, a seat of ancient civilization, was conquered by Egypt, 
the Mohammedans soon after the rise of their religion. 
Some centuries later it was conquered by the Turks, and 
became a part of the Turkish Empire (1517). It is nom- 
inally such to-day, its supreme ruler being the Sultan, who 
resides in Constantinople. But a series of remarkable events 
in the nineteenth century has resulted in giving it a most 
singular and complicated position. To put down certain 

opponents of the Sultan an Albanian warrior, Mehemet Ali, .,. , 
^^ . _ ' , ' All founds 

was sent out early in the nineteenth century. Appointed a semi-royal 
Governor of Egypt in 1806, by 1811 he had made himself house. 
* Quoted in Bliss, Encyclopedia of Social Reform, 270. 



558 



THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 



Ismail and 
the rapid 
growth of 
the Egyp- 
tian debt. 



absolute master of the country. He had succeeded only too 
well. Originally merely the representative of the Sultan, 
he had become the real ruler of the land. His ambitions 
grew with his successes. In time he aspired to add Syria 
to his states, but was checked in this by a European in- 
tervention in 1840. He was compelled to acknowledge the 
suzerainty of the Porte once more, and to limit his rule 
to Egypt, but he gained in turn the important concession 
that the right to rule as viceroy should be hereditary in his 
family. The title was later changed to that of Khedive 
(1866). The present Khedive, Abbas II, is the seventh 
ruler of the dynasty thus founded. 

The fifth ruler of this family was Ismail (1863-79). 
It was under him that the Suez Canal was completed, a 
great undertaking carried through by a French engineer, 
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the money coming largely from 
European investors. This Khedive plunged into the most 
reckless extravagance. As a result the Egyptian debt rose 
with extraordinary rapidity from three million pounds in 
1863 to eighty-nine million in 1876. This, as well as the 
increased taxation which characterized the same years, was 
a crushing burden for a poor and ignorant population. 
Sir Alfred Milner after studying the situation declared: 
" There is nothing in the financial history of any country, 
from the remotest ages to the present time, to equal this 
carnival of extravagance and oppression." 

The Khedive, needing money, sold, in 1875, his shares in 
the Suez Canal Company to Great Britain for about four 
million pounds, to the great irritation of the French. They 
are now worth seven times as much. This was a mere 
temporary relief to the Khedive's finances, but was an im- 
portant advantage to England, as the canal was destined 
inevitably to be the favorite route to India. 

The extraordinary increase of the Egyptian debt is the 
key to the whole later history of that country. The money 
had been borrowed abroad, mainly in England and France. 



ENGLISH INTERVENTION IN EGYPT 559 

Fearing the bankruptcy of Egypt, the governments of the Interven- 

two countries intervened in the interest of their investors, ^"^ " 

, , . . . , . , , England 

and succeeded in imposing their control over a large part j^^jj 

of the financial administration. This was the famous Dual France. 
Control, which lasted from 1879 to 1883. The Khedive, 
Ismail, resented this tutelage, was consequently forced to 
abdicate, and was succeeded by his son Tewfik, who ruled 
from 1879 to 1892. The new Khedive did not struggle 
against the Dual Control, but certain elements of the popu- 
lation did. The bitter hatred inspired by this intervention 
of the foreigners flared up in a native movement that had 
as its war cry, " Egypt for the Egyptians," and as its Revolt of 
leader, Arabi Pasha, an officer in the army. Before this -^rabi 
movement of his subjects the Khedive was powerless. It 
was evident that the foreign control, established in the 
interests of foreign bond-holders, could only be perpetuated 
by the suppression of Arabi and his fellow-malcontents, and 
that that suppression could be accomplished only by the 
foreigners themselves. Thus financial intervention led 
directly to military intervention. England sought the co- 
operation of France, but France declined. She then pro- 
ceeded alone. A British fleet bombarded Alexandria, and English 
forced its abandonment by Arabi (July 11, 1882). Arabi expedition 

and his troops withdrew. England then sent an army under . 

^ » ^ ^ msurrec- 

General Wolseley, who with great swiftness and precision, tion. 
marched from the Suez Canal westward across the desert 
to Cairo. Wolseley defeated Arabi at Tel-el-Kebir, Sep- 
tember 13, 1882, and immediately seized Cairo. The re- 
bellion collapsed. Arabi himself was captured and sent to 
Ceylon. 

The English had intervened nominally in the interest of 
the Khedive's authority against his rebel, Arabi, though they 
had not been asked so to intervene either by the Khedive 
himself or by the Sultan of Turkey, legal sovereign of 
Egypt, or by the powers of Europe. Having suppressed 
the insurrection, what would they do? Would they with- 



560 THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 

draw their army? The question was a difficult one. To 
withdraw was, in the opinion of the British ministry, of 
which Gladstone was the head, and Lord Granville the foreign 
secretary, to leave Egypt a prey to anarchy; to remain 
was certainly to offend the European powers, which would 
look upon this as simply another piece of British aggression. 
Particularly would such action be resented by France, and 
England by the Sultan. The ministry decided neither to annex the 
assumes the country to the British Empire nor to proclaim a British 
^ . „ protectorate over it, but to assume the position of " adviser " 
to the Khedive, whose power would nominally remain what 
it had been. Under British " advice " the Khedive would 
himself carry out the reforms considered necessary for the 
prosperity and welfare of his country. This policy was ex- 
pressed by Lord Granville in a diplomatic note sent to the 
various powers of Europe. " Although," so runs the note, 
" for the present a British force remains in Egypt for the 
preservation of public tranquillity, her Majesty's Govern- 
ment are desirous of withdrawing it as soon as the state of 
the country and the organization of proper means for the 
maintenance of the Khedive's authority will admit of it. In 
the meantime the position in which her Majesty's Govern- 
ment are placed towards His Highness imposes upon them the 
duty of giving advice with the object of securing that the 
order of things to be established shall be of a satisfactory 
character, and possess the elements of stability and progress." 
A gloss on the meaning of the word " advice " was furnished 
a year later by Lord Granville in a communication to the 
British representative in Egypt, Sir Evelyn Baring, later 
Lord Cromer. " It should," wrote Lord Granville, " be 
made clear to the Egyptian ministers and governors of prov- 
inces that the responsibility, which for a time rests on 
England, obliges her Majesty's Government to insist on the 
adoption of the policy which they recommend, and that it 
will be necessary that those ministers and governors who do 
not follow this course should cease to hold their office." 



GORDON AND THE SOUDAN 561 

These two utterances described the anomalous position The 
of England in Egypt in 1883, and they still describe it. Englisli 
A British force still remains in Egypt, the " occupation " . „ 
continues, advice is compulsory. England has often been 
asked when she intends to keep her promise. No answer has 
been given. She is ruler in fact, not in law. The Dual 
Control ended in 1883, and England began in earnest the 
process of reconstruction and reform which has been pro- 
ceeding ever since under the real guidance of Lord Cromer, 
the British Consul-General in Egypt. ^ 

In intervening in Egypt in 1882, England became imme- 
diately involved in a further enterprise which ended in disaster 
and humiliation. Egypt possessed a dependency to the 
south, the Soudan, a vast region comprising chiefly the basin 
of the Upper Nile, a poorly organized territory with a 
varied, semi-civilized, nomadic population, and a capital 
at Khartoum. This province, long oppressed by Egypt, 
was in full process of revolt. It found a chief in a man 
called the Mahdi, or leader, who succeeded in arousing the 
fierce religious fanaticism of the Soudanese by claiming to be 
a kind of Prophet or Messiah. Winning successes over the loss of 
Egyptian troops, he proclaimed a religious war, the people ® *^* 

of the whole Soudan rallied about him, and the result was 
that the troops were driven into their fortresses and there 
besieged. Would England recognize any obligation to pre- 
serve the Soudan for Egypt.? Gladstone, then prime min- 
ister, determined to abandon the Soudan. But even this 
was a matter of difficulty. It involved at least the rescue 
of the imprisoned garrisons. The ministry was unwilling 
to send a military expedition. It finally decided to send out 
General Gordon, a man who had shown a remarkable power 
in influencing half-civilized races. It was understood that 
there was to be no expedition. It was apparently supposed 
that somehow Gordon, without military aid, could accom- 

^ Lord Cromer resigned his position as His Majesty's Agent and 
Consul-General in Egypt, in 1907. 



562 THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 

plish the safe withdrawal of the garrisons. He reached 
Khartoum, but found the danger far more serious than 
had been supposed, the rebellion far more menacing. He 
found himself shortly shut up in Khartoum, surrounded 
by frenzied and confident Mahdists. At once there arose 
in England a cry for the relief of Gordon, a man whose 
personality, marked by heroic, eccentric, magnetic qualities, 
bafflingly contradictory, had seized in a remarkable degree 
the interest, enthusiasm, and imagination of the English 
people. But the Government was dilatory. Weeks, and 
even months, went by. Finally, an expedition was sent out 
in September 1884. Pushing forward rapidly, against great 
difficulties, it reached Khartoum January 28, 1885, only to 
Beath of find the flag of the Mahdi floating over it. Only two days 
Gordon. before the place had been stormed and Gordon and eleven 

thousand of his men massacred. Public opinion held Glad- 
stone responsible, and as a result his ministry was quickly 
overthrown. 

For the next decade the Soudan was left in the hands 
of the dervishes, completely abandoned. But it was certain 
that the reconquest of the provinces would some day be 
attempted. Various forces contributed to this end — 'the na- 
tional honor, the feeling that Gordon must be avenged, the 
sense of humiliation that the Egyptian empire had grown 
smaller under English rule, the conviction that the power 
that controls the lower reaches of the Nile must, for its 
own safety, control the upper reaches and the sources, also. 
And another cause was the pronounced growth during these 
years, in England as elsewhere, of the spirit of imperialism, 
eager for an onward march. In 1896 an Anglo-Egyptian 
army was sent into the Soudan under General Kitchener. 
Building a railway as he advanced, in order properly to 
supply his army, he progressed " very slowly, but very 
surely." At the battle of Omdurman, September 2, 1898, 
Recovery of the power of the dervishes was completely annihilated. Thus 
the Soudan, the Soudan was recovered, but it was recovered, not for 



EGYPT AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE 563 

Egypt, but for England and Egypt. The British and 
the Egyptian flags were both raised over the conquered field. 
Thus the power of England in the Soudan rests technically 
upon a different basis than does its power in Egypt. For 
all practical purposes, however, both are simply parts of 
the British Empire. 



CHAPTER XXIV 
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 

SPAIN SINCE 1823 

Spain. We have traced the history of Spain from the downfall 

of Napoleon to the year 1823, and have seen the restored 
King Ferdinand VII reign in a manner so cruel, so un- 
intelligent, and tyrannical that the people rose in insurrec- 
tion and insisted upon being accorded a liberal constitution/ 
And we have seen that as a result the powers, commonly 
called the Holy Alliance, intervened in 1823 to put down 
this reform movement, sent a French army into the peninsula, 
and restored to Ferdinand his former absolute power. This 
recovery of his former position through foreign aid was 
Revenge of followed by a period of disgraceful and ruthless revenge 
VII after ^^ ^^^ part of Ferdinand upon those who had stood out 
1823. S'S Liberals, or had merely been lukewarm toward the King. 

Forced finally by the energetic remonstrances of the French, 
who had put him back upon his absolute throne, to moderate 
the frenzy of his wrath, he was obliged to grant an amnesty, 
which proved, however, to be most deceptive, as it excepted 
from its operation fifteen different classes. The royal rage 
was slow in subsiding. Hundreds were executed at the 
order of courts-martial for the most trivial acts in which 
there was the slightest tinge of liberalism, such as uttering 
" Subver- so-called " subversive " cries, or possessing a portrait of 
sive" cries. Riego, or defacing an inscription "Long live the Absolute 
King." Various classes were carefully watched as " sus- 
pects," military men, lawyers, doctors, professors, and even 
veterinary surgeons. Universities and clubs, political and 
social, were closed as dangerous, yet most of them were 
*See Chapter III. 
564 



LOSS OF THE AMERICAN COLONIES 565 

entirely innocuous, and little disposed to criticise or disturb 
the existing order. The University of Cervera, for instance, 
had begun an address to the monarch with the reassuring 
words, " Far from us the dangerous novelty of thinking." 
After closing the universities as inimical to society, Ferdi- 
nand endowed a school of bull-fighting at Seville. 

Ferdinand VII ruled for ten years after his second restora- loss of the 
tion, and in the spirit of unprogressive, unenlightened ab- •^^^ricaa 
solutism. His reign is not signalized by any attempt to 
improve the conditions of a country that sorely needed 
reform. It is notable mainly for the loss of the immense 
Spanish empire in the new world, and the rise of the in- 
dependent states of Central and South America. Prac- 
tically nothing remained under the scepter of the King save 
Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. 

Ferdinand's chief interest in the last years of his reign The 

was the determination of the succession. He had no heir. "1^®^"°^ 

of the 
But, assured, in March 1830, that one was about to be s^ccessioa. 

born to him, he wished that the child, whether son or daugh- 
ter, should succeed him. In the case of a daughter, however, 
the Salic law would stand in the way. This law was not a 
native product of the evolution of the Spanish monarchy. 
For centuries the laws of Castille and Leon had permitted 
women to rule, and one of the great figures in Spanish 
history was Isabella, Queen of Castille, the patroness of 
Columbus, who, moreover, upon her death was succeeded by 
her daughter. But with the accession of the Bourbon line 
of monarchs the Salic law was introduced. It was a French 
importation, resting on the decree of Philip V, issued in 
1713. As the king was absolute, his decree made it law. 

In 1789 Charles IV prepared to rescmd this law. A The 

decree was drawn up, called the Pragmatic Sanction, making ^agma ic 

' , 1- T 1 1 Sanction, 

the change. But this decree was not published, and was 

known only to a few. Forty years later, in March 1830, 

Ferdinand VII drew it forth and promulgated it, whereupon 

Don Carlos, his brother, and the next in the line of succession. 



566 



SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 



Isabella 

proclaimed 

Queen. 



The Carlist 
War. 



if the Salic law were not repealed, issued a public protest 
and announced his intention to assert his rights to the crown 
if the contingency should arise. In October 1830 a daughter, 
Isabella, was born. 

The matter now became the subject of court bickering 
and intrigue, one faction struggling for the withdrawal of 
the new decree, the other for its maintenance. In 1832 
the King fell ill, and, believing his end to be near, and 
dominated at the time by the supporters of Don Carlos, 
he signed a paper revoking the Pragmatic Sanction, Septem- 
ber 18, 1832. The King, contrary to all expectations, 
began to recover, whereupon his sister-in-law, aunt of the 
little Isabella, forced her way to his bedside, berated him for 
his weakness, had the decree brought her, revoking the 
Pragmatic Sanction, and tore it up. 

The King did not change his mind again, and when he 
died, September 29, 1833, his daughter Isabella, three years 
of age, was proclaimed Queen, with her mother, Christina, 
as Regent. Christina was in power seven years, from 1833 
to 1840, when she was driven into exile. During that time 
the Carlist war and the political evolution of the kingdom 
constituted the two chief series of events. 

Don Carlos, true to his word, refusing to recognize the 
revocation of the Salic law, proclaimed himself king im- 
mediately after the death of Perdinand, and a war of seven 
years was necessary to determine whether he or his niece, 
Isabella, should henceforth be the ruler of Spain. The 
supporters of Isabella, called Christinos, after the Regent 
Christina, had the advantage of being in actual possession of 
Madrid and the machinery of government. They also con- 
trolled a part of the army. Don Carlos, on the other hand, 
was supported by the clergy and nobility, and all who be- 
lieved in thorough-going absolutism, many of whom consid- 
ered even the regime of the late Ferdinand too mild. The 
war between these factions was very irregular and incoherent, 
and is of little interest. As neither side had numerous 



SPAIN A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY 567 

troops or large resources, the fighting was carried on in 
guerilla fashion by small detachments. Local issues en- 
tered in to make confusion worse confounded. 

Christina had no desire to use her position for the pur- 
pose of reforming Spain. " I will maintain scrupulously," 
she said at the outset, " the form and fundamental laws 
of the monarchy, admitting none of the dangerous innova- 
tions of which we already know too well the cost. The 
best form of government for a country is that to which 
it is accustomed." Christina was an absolutist by training 
and conviction. Yet under her the Spanish monarchy was 
changed from an absolute to a constitutional one. She 
saw the Carlists victorious in the north, and even gaining 
a part of old Castille. She was forced to appeal to the 
Liberals for support, and to gain them was obliged to grant 
the Royal Statute of 1834. This established a parhament The Royal 

divided into two bodies, the Chamber of Peers and the Cham- ®''**^*^' 

1834. 
ber of Deputies. The latter was to be elected by the 

property owners for a term of three years. The Chambers 
were to have the power to vote taxes and laws. But the 
Government was to have sole right to propose laws. Min- 
isters, moreover, were not to be responsible to the Chambers, 
to rise and fall according to their will, but were to be 
responsible to the monarch alone. The Crown could sum- 
mon and dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, but a year 
must not pass without a meeting of Parliament. This statute 
resembled the French Charter of 1814. It granted a cer- 
tain amount of individual liberty. It created a parliament 
which represented the propertied class, but whose powers 
were not large. It marks some progress, as by it, by action 
of the Crown itself, instead of by action of revolutionists, 
as hitherto, Spain became a constitutional state. The gain, 
though largely nominal, was something. It did not satisfy 
the Liberals, but it contributed somewhat to the political 
education of the country. 

The parliamentary history of Spain, opening in 1834, 



568 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 

Disturbed was much disturbed, bewildering and unprofitable to follow, 
po 1 ica Ministries changed with amazing frequency, parties were 

more nominal than real, not representing bodies of divergent 
political principles, but serving as masks for men who were 
eager to get into office as an easy method of gaining a 
livelihood. The ministries were short; in twenty-five years, 
from 1833 to 1858, there were 47 presidents of council, 
61 ministers of the interior, 78 of finance, and 96 of war. 

The Liberals were divided into two groups, the Moderates 
and the Progressists. The Moderates accepted the Statute 
of 1834, which so carefully guarded the rights of the mon- 
arch, and gave him such power over the chambers. But 
the Progressists demanded the far more liberal Constitution 
of 1812, which clearly proclaimed the sovereignty of the 
people and made Parliament more powerful than the mon- 
arch. As the Carlist war continued unfavorable, Christina 
The ^^^ driven to make further concessions. The Constitution of 

Censtitution 1837 was accordingly promulgated, more liberal than the 
of 1837. Statute of 1834, less Hberal than the Constitution of 181S. 
The Parliament or Cortes were henceforth to consist of a 
Senate and a Congress, the former to be appointed for life 
and, under certain restrictions, by the Crown, the latter to 
be elected by the voters for three years. This Constitution 
had been framed by a constituent Cortes, whereas the Statute 
of 1834 was merely a royal decree. 

The Carlist war was finally brought to a close, with the 

help of England and France, in 1840, but at the same 

time the Queen Regent was driven from the country. Actual 

direction of the government now fell for many years into 

the hands of rival military leaders. The war had left 

TT ^^^ army the strongest force in the state. Isabella II was 

declared of declared of age in 1843, and the government was carried on 

age. henceforth in her name. Her reign, which lasted until 1868, 

was one, on the whole, of reaction. Adhering tenaciously 

to the forms of religion, and to the principle of monarchical 

authority, the Queen was influenced throughout by her favor- 



OVERTHROW OF THE SPANISH BOURBONS 569 

ites, by a camarilla, and did not observe the spirit, and 
frequently not the letter, of the constitution. Her reign 
was marked by absolutism nearly as unqualified as that of 
her predecessors. Constitutional forms were used to cover 
arbitrary actions. It was a period of short and weak 
ministries, court intrigue, petty politics, a period little in- 
structive. Whatever disturbances occurred were vigorously 
repressed. 

In 1861 Spain joined England and France in sending The 
an expedition to Mexico to enforce certain claims upon the Mexican 
Mexican government. Spain and England quickly with- 
drew from this undertaking, leaving France to embark upon 
one of the most ill-starred enterprises of Napoleon III. In 
1861 also Spain took possession again of her former colony 
of San Domingo, only to relinquish it a little later as the 
result of a revolt. 

Dissatisfaction with the existing regime, marked, as it 
was, by arbitrariness, by religious and intellectual intoler- 
ance, by abuses and corruption, and by the scandalous im- 
morality of the Queen, increased as the reign progressed. 
The more liberal politicians and officers in the army and 
navy, persecuted under this regime, became revolutionary. 
In 1865 an insurrection broke out, led by General Prim. It 
was suppressed and Prim sought refuge in exile. In 1866 
and 1867 similar movements occurred, likewise abortive. 
But in 1868 the issue was different. More widespread than 
the others, and more carefully organized, this revolt re- The over- 
suited in the flight of the Queen to France, and in the throw of 
establishment of a provisional government, in which Marshal 
Serrano and General Prim were the leading figures. The 
reign of the Spanish Bourbons was declared at an end, 
and universal suff^rage, religious liberty, and freedom of the 
press were proclaimed as the fundamental principles of the 
future constitution. The Society of Jesus was suppressed. 

The Cortes were elected a little later by universal suf- 
frage, and the future government of Spain was left to their 



570 



SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 



The 

Regency 
Marshal 
Serrano. 



Amadeo 
Savoy 
chosen 
king. 



determination. They drew up a constitution based upon 
popular sovereignty, and promulgated it in June 1869. They 
pronounced in favor of a monarchy and against a republic, 
by a vote of 214 to 71. They established a regency under 
Marshal Serrano, to conduct the government until a king 
of should be chosen. This proved to be no easy task. The 
queen, Isabella II, abdicated in favor of her son Alfonso, 
but those in power were opposed to any representative of 
the House of Bourbon. It was considered necessary that 
the king should be a Roman Catholic; that, moreover, he 
should be of royal blood. Some advocated a son of Louis 
Philippe, others a Portuguese prince. Finally, after long 
negotiations, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollem was chosen. 
His candidacy is important in history as having been the 
immediate occasion of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. 
In the end Leopold declined the offer. 

At length, November 1870, the crown was offered by a 
of vote of 191 out of 311, to Amadeo, second son of Victor 
Emmanuel 11.^ The smallness of the majority was ominous. 
The new king's reign was destined to be short and troubled. 
Landing in Spain at the close of 1870, he was coldly re- 
ceived. Opposition to him came from several sources — 
from the Republicans, who were opposed to any monarch; 
from the Carlists, who claimed that the heir of Don Carlos, 
brother of Ferdinand VII, was the lawful king; from the 
supporters of Alfonso, son of Isabella, who held that he 
was the legitimate ruler. Amadeo was disliked also for 
the simple reason that he was a foreigner. The clergy 
attacked him for his adherence to constitutional principles 
of government. No strong body of politicians supported 
him. Ministries rose and fell with great rapidity, eight in 
two years, one of them lasting only seventeen days. Each 
change left the government more disorganized and more 
unpopular. Believing that the problem of giving peace 

* Sixty-three voted for a republic; the other votes were scattering or 
blank. 



ABDICATION OF AMADEO 571 

to Spain was insoluble, and wearying of an uneasy crown, 
Amadeo, in February 1873, resigned his powers into the Abdication 
hands of the Cortes. In a letter to that body he said, of Amadeo. 
" I realize that my good intentions have been in vain. For 
two long years have I worn the crown of Spain, and Spain 
still lives in continual strife, departing day by day more 
widely from that era of peace and prosperity for which 
I have so ardently yearned. I am to-day firmly convinced 
of the barrenness of my efforts and the impossibility of 
attaining my aims. These, deputies, are the reasons that 
move me to give back to the nation, and in its name to 
you, the crown offered me by the national suffrage, re- 
nouncing it for myself, my children, and my successors." 

The abdication of Amadeo left the nation without an 
executive. The ministry necessarily disappeared with the 
monarch, whose servant it was. The Cortes alone remained 
as a depository of power. In the Cortes there were many 
Republicans. Feeling that monarchy by divine right had 
failed in the person of Isabella II, and ought not to be 
restored either by calling her or her son to the throne, feeling 
also that elective monarchy had failed in the person of 
Amadeo, they held that the only alternative was the re- 
public, that, moreover, it was the only form of government 
consistent with the principle of the sovereignty of the people. 
The Monarchists, taken by surprise, had no definite plan. 
The Cortes, therefore, proclaimed the Republic, February The estab- 
12, 1873, by a vote of 258 to 32, and declared that the lishment of 
constitution should be framed by a convention to be chosen 
especially for that purpose. Castelar, a prominent Republi- 
can, speaking of the fall of the monarchy, declared that it 
had not been brought about by violence. " No one destroyed 
it. It died of natural causes. The monarchy died of in- 
ternal decomposition. It died by the providence of God. 
The Republic is the creation of circumstances. It comes 
from a conjuncture of society and nature and history." 

But the advent of the Republic did not bring peace. In- 



of its 
fall. 



572 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 

deed, its history was short and agitated. European powers, 
with the exception of Switzerland, withdrew their diplo- 
matic representatives. The United States alone recognized 
the new government. The Republic lasted from February 
1873 to the end of December 1874. It established a wide 
suiFrage, proclaimed religious liberty " in all its purity," 
proposed the complete separation of the church and state, 
and voted unanimously for the immediate emancipation of 
slaves in Porto Rico. 
The causes The causes of its fall were numerous. The fundamental 
one was that the Spaniards had had no long political train- 
ing, essential for efficient self-government, no true experience 
in party management. The leaders did not work together 
harmoniously. Moreover, the Republicans, once in power, 
immediately fell apart into various groups, of which the 
principal were those who believed in a centralized republic 
and those who believed in a federal republic. The Federal- 
ists differed even among themselves as to the size of the 
various units that should form the federation. The avowed 
enemies of the Republic were numerous, the Monarchists, 
the clergy, offended by the proclamation of religious liberty, 
all those who profited by the old regime, and who resented 
the reforms which were threatened. Also, the problems that 
faced the new government increased the confusion. Three 
wars were in progress during the brief life of the Republic — 
a war in Cuba, a Carlist war, and a war with the Federalists 
in southern Spain. 

Presidents succeeded each other rapidly. Figueras was 
in office four months. Pi y Margall six weeks, Salmeron and 
Castelar for short periods. Finally, Serrano became prac- 
tically dictator. The fate of the Republic was determined 
by the generals of the army, the most powerful body in 
the country, who declared in December 1874 in favor of 

Alfonso, son of Isabella II. The Republic fell without a 
Alfonso XII .... 

recognized struggle. Alfonso, landing in Spain early m 1875, and 

as king. being received in Madrid with great enthusiasm, assumed 



THE CONSTITUTION OF 1876 573 

the government, promising a constitutional monarchy. The 
Carlist war was brought to an end in the following year. 
Thus, six years after the dethronement of Isabella, her 
son was welcomed back as king. Those six years had been 
characterized by instability and governmental confusion. 
The new King had followed his mother into exile in 1868, 
and had spent the intervening years in study in France, 
Austria, Switzerland, and England. He was now seventeen 
years of age. His reign lasted ten years, until his death 
in November 1885. In 1876 a new Constitution was voted, The Con- 

the last in the long line of ephemeral documents issuing s i u ion o 

^ , ^ ^ 1876. 

during the century from either monarch or Cortes or revolu- 
tionary junta. Still in force, the Constitution of 1876 
declared the person of the king inviolable, created a re- 
sponsible ministry, a parliament of two chambers, a Con- 
gress of Deputies, elected by voters meeting a property 
qualification, and a Senate, consisting of three classes, those 
sitting in their own right, such as sons of the king, grandees 
of a certain wealth, admirals of the navy, archbishops, life 
members appointed by the king, and elective members, chosen 
for five years by certain corporations, such as provincial 
legislatures and universities, and by the wealthier citizens. 
The executive power was vested in the king, the legislative 
in the king and the parliament. No project should become 
law unless passed by both houses. Spain possesses the 
machinery of parliamentary government, ministries rising 
and falling according to the votes of parliament. Prac- 
tically, however, the political warfare is largely mimic. The 
two chief parties in 1876 were the Conservatives, led by 
Canovas, and the Liberals, led by Sagasta. But they were 
divided, not so much by principle, as by a desire for office. 
Parliamentary institutions have been used for purposes of 
personal advantage rather than for the increase of the 
national well-being through courageous and intelligent legis- 
lation. They constitute a parody on the parliamentary 
system. 



574 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 

Death of Alfonso XII died in 1885. His wife, an Austrian prin- 

Alfonso XII. cess, Maria Christina, was proclaimed regent for a child 
born a few months later, the present King Alfonso XIII. 
Maria Christina, during the sixteen years of her regency, 
confronted many difficulties. Of these the most serious was 
the condition of Cuba, Spain's chief colony. An insurrec- 
tion had broken out in that island in 1868, occasioned by 
the gross misgovernment of the mother country. This Cuban 
war dragged on for ten years, cost Spain nearly 100,000 
men and $200,000,000, and was only ended in 1878 by 
means of lavish bribes and liberal promises of reform in the 
direction of self-government. As these promises were not 
fulfilled, and as the condition of the Cubans became more 
unendurable, another rebellion broke out in 1895. This 
new war, prosecuted with great and savage severity by 
Weyler, ultimately aroused the United States to intervene 
The in the interests of humanity and civilization. A war re- 

Spanish- suited between the United States and Spain in 1898, which 
War proved most disastrous to the latter. Her naval power was 

annihilated in the battles of Santiago and Cavite; her army 
in Santiago was forced to surrender, and she was com- 
pelled to sign the Treaty of Paris of 1898, by which she 
loss of renounced Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands. 

' The Spanish Empire, which at the opening of the nine- 

the Philip- teenth century bulked large on the map of the world, com- 
pines. prising immense possessions in America, and the islands of 

both hemispheres, has disappeared. Revolts in Central and 
South America, beginning when Joseph Napoleon became 
King in 1808, and ending with Cuban independence ninety 
years later, have left Spain with the mere shreds of her 
former possessions, Rio de Oro, Rio Muni in western Africa, 
and a few small islands off the African coast. The Canary 
Islands are not colonies but form one of the provinces of 
the kingdom. The disappearance of the Spanish colonial 
empire is one of the most significant features of the nine- 
teenth century. Once one of the great world powers, Spain 



PORTUGAL SINCE 1815 575 

is to-day a state of inferior rank, a negligible quantity in 

this era of world politics. 

In 1902 the present King, Alfonso XIII, formally assumed Alfonso 

• • • ZIII 

the reins of government. He married in May 1906 Prmcess 

° •' assumes 

Ena of Battenberg. Profound and numerous reforms are power, 
necessary to range the country in the line of progress. 
Though universal suffrage was established in 1890, political 
conditions and methods have not changed. Illiteracy is 
widespread. Out of a population of 18,000,000 perhaps 
12,000,000 are illiterate. In recent years attempts have 
been made to improve this situation; also to reduce the in- 
fluence of the Roman Catholic Church in the state. Nothing 
important has yet been accomplished in this direction. 
Public worship is forbidden to the members of any other 
church. 

PORTUGAL, 1815-1909 

Portugal, like other countries, felt the full shock of Na- 
poleonic aggression. French armies were sent into the 
peninsula in 1807 for the purpose of forcing that country 
into the Continental System, of closing all Europe to Eng- 
lish commerce. The royal family fled from Lisbon just Flight of 
as the French were approaching, and went to the capital of ^°y^l 
Portugal's leading colony, Brazil. The actual authority ^j-^^ii 
in Portugal for several years was the English army and 1807. 
Lord Beresford. Portugal suffered during this period the 
immense loss of a million in population. After the fall of 
Napoleon the Portuguese hoped for the return of the royal 
family, but this did not occur. The King, John VI, was 
contented in Rio de Janeiro ; moreover, he felt that his de- 
parture from Brazil would be the signal for a rebellion 
in that colony, which would result in its independence. The 
situation gave great dissatisfaction to the Portuguese, whose 
pride was hurt by the fact that they no longer had a court 
in Lisbon, and that the mother country seemed to be in 
the position of a colony, inferior in importance to Brazil. 



576 



SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 



PortugTiese 
revolution 
of 1820. 



Loss of 
Brazil. 



Moreover, Beresford remained in Portugal after 1814, and 
was the real ruler of the country. The relations between the 
Portuguese and the English were strained from the begin- 
ning. The army was disaffected because it was not promptly 
paid, and because many of the positions in it were held by 
Englishmen. An occasion for the explosion of the growing 
discontent was furnished by the Spanish revolution of 1820. 
Encouraged by the movement in the sister state, the Port- 
uguese army revolted, and the Cortes were summoned to 
frame a constitution. This body adopted, in 1822, what 
was practically the famous Spanish Constitution of 1812, 
which, as has been shown, was largely the French Con- 
stitution of 1791, the ideal of radicals in various countries, 
which, moreover, possessed the advantage of being ready 
made. The King accepted it, and Portugal, hitherto an 
absolute monarchy, became a constitutional one. The King 
meanwhile had returned from Brazil, leaving his eldest son, 
Dom Pedro, as regent of that country. In 1822 Brazil 
declared itself an independent empire, under Dom Pedro I. 
Three years later its independence was recognized by 
Portugal. 

Meanwhile, the Portuguese Constitution proved short- 
lived. As the absolutists regained control in Spain in 
1823, the absolutists in Portugal also were encouraged to at- 
tempt to recover their power, and succeeded. The first ex- 
periment in constitutional government had been very brief, 
but it resulted in leaving a constitutional party confronting 
an absolutist party. 

The death of King John VI in 1826 created a new crisis, 
which distracted the country for many years. His eldest 
son, Dom Pedro, was Emperor of Brazil. His younger son 
was Dom Miguel. Dom Pedro was lawfully King of Portu- 
gal. He opened his reign as Pedro IV by granting a liberal 
constitutional charter introducing parliamentary government 
of the English type. Then, not wishing to return from 
Brazil, he abdicated in favor of his daughter. Donna Maria 



PREVALENT DISCONTENT IN PORTUGAL 577 

da Gloria. Hoping to disarm his brother Dom Miguel, who Donna 
himself wished to be king, he betrothed his daughter, aged Maria da 
seven, to Dom Miguel, decreeing that the marriage should 
be consummated when Donna Maria became of age. He 
then appointed Dom Miguel regent for the little princess. 
But Miguel, landing in Portugal in 1828, was proclaimed 
king by the absolutists. He accepted the crown. His reign 
was odious in the extreme, characterized by cruelty and 
arbitrariness, by a complete defiance of the law, of all per- 
sonal liberty, by imprisonments and deportations and execu- 
tions. Dom Pedro abdicated his position as Emperor of 
Brazil, and returned to Europe to take charge of the 
cause of his daughter. This civil war between Maria da 
Gloria and Dom Miguel resulted in the favor of the former. 
Dom Miguel formally renounced all claims to the throne 
and left Portugal never to return (1834). 

Maria reigned until her death in 1853, a reign rendered Beath of 
turbulent and unstable by the violence of political struggles Maria, 
and by frequent insurrections. In 1852 the Charter of 
1826, restored by Maria's government, was liberalized by 
important alterations, with the result that various parties 
were satisfied, and political life under her successor, Pedro 
V, was mild and orderly. His reign was uneventful. 
He was followed in 1861 by Louis I, and he in 1889 by 
Carlos I. 

Of recent years radical parties. Republican, Socialist, Kecent 

have grown up. Discontent during this period expressed ^^^^^^ m 
. & i- . , , Portugal, 

itself by deeds of violence. The Government replied by 

becoming more and more arbitrary. The King, Carlos I, 
even assumed to alter the Charter of 1826, still the basis 
of Portuguese political life, by mere decree. The contro- 
versy between Liberals, Radicals, and Conservatives de- 
veloped astounding bitterness. Parliamentary institutions 
ceased to work normally, necessary legislation could not be 
secured. On February 1, 1908, the King and the Crown 
Prince were assassinated in the streets of Lisbon. His second 



578 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 

son succeeded, and is at present King, Manuel II. Portugal 
evidently faces serious problems ; monarchy itself is in danger. 
She is burdened with an immense debt, disproportionate to 
her resources, and entailing oppressive taxation. Her edu- 
cational system is most inadequate. Her population is over 
five million. She has small colonial possessions in Asia and 
extensive ones in Africa, which have thus far proved of little 
value. The Azores and Madeira are not colonies but are 
integral parts of the kingdom. 



CHAPTER XXV 

HOLLAND AND BELGIUM SINCE 1830 
HOLLAND 

We have described the dismemberment of the Kingdom of Holland, 
the Netherlands in 1830, and the years succeeding. That 
kingdom, which included what we know as Holland and 
Belgium, was the work of the Congress of Vienna, created 
as a bulwark against France. The Belgians had revolted, 
and, supported in the end by some of the great powers, had 
won their independence. Since then there have been two 
kingdoms. 

The old Dutch provinces preserved the name henceforth 
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This kingdom, more 
frequently called Holland in English-speaking countries, 
has had a history of comparatively quiet internal develop- 
ment, and has played no important role in international 
politics. It has passed through several reigns, that of 
WilHam I, from 1814 to 1840; of William II, from 1840 to 
1849; of William HI, from 1849 to 1890, and of Queen 
Wilhelmina since 1890. The questions of greatest prom- 
inence in her separate history have been those concerning 
constitutional liberties, educational policy, and colonial ad- 
ministration. 

The political system rested upon the Fundamental Law The Funda- 

granted by William I in 1815. By this the kingdom be- "'^^^^^ 

. Law of 
came a constitutional monarchy, but a monarchy in which jgjg 

the king was more powerful than the parliament, or States- 
General. By that law, the States-General were composed 
of two chambers, one of which consisted of members ap- 
pointed for life by the king, the other of members chosen 
by the estates of the provinces, which themselves were chosen 

579 



580 HOLLAND AND BELGIUM SINCE 1830 

by voters meeting a certain property qualification. The 
legislative power of the States-General was restricted to the 
acceptance and rejection of bills submitted by the Govern- 
ment. They had no powers of origination or of amendment. 
The budget was voted for a period of years ; the civil service 
was beyond their control. The ministry was not responsible 
to them, but to the king alone. 

Such a system was an advance upon absolutism, but it 
left the king extensive powers, not easily or adequately con- 
trolled, and rendered possible the personal government of 
William I, which ended in the revolt of the Belgians in 
1830. The Liberals of Holland demanded that this system 
should be radically changed, and that thenceforth the 
emphasis should be laid upon parliament, and that parlia- 
ment should be brought into closer connection with the people. 
After an agitation of several years they were rewarded with 
Tlie Con- a considerable measure of success. A revision of the con- 
stitution was made by a commission appointed by the King, 
and was adopted by an extraordinary States^General in 
1848, the general revolutionary tendency of that time no 
doubt facilitating the change. By the revised Constitution 
of 1848 the power of the king was diminished, that of par- 
liament greatly increased. The Upper House was no longer 
to be appointed by the monarch, but elected by the provincial 
estates. The Lower House was to be chosen directly by 
the voters, that is, those who paid a certain property tax, 
varying according to locality. The ministers were made 
responsible to the States-General, which also acquired the 
right to initiate legislation, to amend projects submitted, 
and to vote the budget annually. Their sessions became pub- 
lic. Later reforms reorganized the provincial estates. Hol- 
land Is divided into eleven provinces, each with its estates. 
The principle at the basis of these, of division into orders, 
or estates, was abolished. They were henceforth to be 
elected directly by those who were entitled to vote for the 
popular chamber of the States-General. Properly speak- 



stitution of 
184S. 



THE DUTCH COLONIES 581 

ing, they ceased to be estates, and became legislatures in 
the modern sense, though the old name was preserved. Since 
1848 the constitution has been subjected to slight amend- 
ments, one of the more important being the enlargement Extension 
in 1887 of the electorate and the extension of the suffrage °^ *^® 
practically to householders and lodgers, as in England. 
This increased the number of voters from about 140,000 
to about 300,000. By a later reform, voted in 1896, in- 
creasing the variety of property qualifications, the number 
was augmented to about 700,000, or one for every seven 
inhabitants. Universal suffrage, demanded by Socialists and 
Liberals, has not been granted. 

The Kingdom of the Netherlands possesses extensive The Dntcli 
colonies in the East Indies and the West Indies. Of these Colonies, 
the most important is Java. Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes in 
Asia, Cura9ao and Surinam or Dutch Guiana in America, 
are valuable possessions. The Dutch colonial empire has a 
population of about 38,000,000, compared with a popula- 
tion of about 6,000,000 in the Netherlands themselves. The 
colonies are of great importance commercially, furnishing 
tropical commodities in large quantities, sugar, coffee, pepper, 
tea, tobacco, and indigo. 

BELGIUM 

The constitution adopted by the Belgians in 1831, at 
the time of their separation from Holland, is still the basis 
of the state. It established an hereditary monarchy, a 
parliament of two chambers, and a ministry responsible to 
it. The King, Leopold I, scrupulously observed the methods 
of parliamentary government from the outset, choosing his 
ministers from the party having the majority in the cham- 
bers. Leopold's reign lasted from 1831 to his death in 
1865. It was one of peaceful development. Institutions 
essential to the welfare of the people were founded. Though The reign 
the neutrality of Belgium was guaranteed by the powers, it I-eopola 
was nevertheless essential that she should herself have force 



582 HOLLAND AND BELGIUM SINCE 1830 

enough to maintain her neutrality. The army was, conse- 
quently, organized and put upon a war basis of 100,000 men. 
State universities were founded, and primary and secondary 
schools were opened in large numbers. Legislation favorable 
to industry and commerce was adopted. Railroads were 
built. Liberty of religion, of the press, of association, 
of education, was guaranteed by the Constitution. Foreign 
relations were prudently conducted by Leopold I, whose 
influence with other rulers of Europe was great, owing to 
his extensive acquaintance with European statesmen, his 
knowledge of politics, his sureness of judgment. Under Leo- 
pold I Belgium's material and intellectual development was 
rapid. 
The He was succeeded in 1865 by his son, Leopold II, who 

Buffrage. ruled for forty-four years. The two most important political 
questions during most of this period have concerned the 
suffrage and the schools. The suffrage was limited by a 
comparatively high property qualification, with the result 
that in 1890 there were only about 135,000 voters out of 
a population of six millions. As the cities had grown 
rapidly, and as the working classes were practically dis- 
franchised, the demand for universal suffrage became in- 
creasingly clamorous until it could no longer be ignored. 
In 1893 the Constitution was revised, and the suffrage greatly 
enlarged. Every man of twenty-five years of age, not dis- 
qualified for some special reason, received the franchise. But 
supplementary votes were given to those who, in addition 
to the age qualification, could meet certain property qualifi- 
cations. This is the principle of plural voting, and was 
designed to give the propertied classes more weight than 
they would have from numbers alone. It was provided that 
no voter should have more than three votes. This form 
of suffrage is strongly opposed by the Socialists, a growing 
party which has attempted to secure the recognition of 
the principle of " one man, one vote," but has not thus far 
been successful. 



POLITICAL PARTIES IN BELGIUM 583 

The political parties of most importance have been the Education. 
Liberal and the Catholic. The Catholics have struggled to 
gain sectarian religious instruction in the schools, and have 
in great measure succeeded. Their opponents desire unsec- 
tarian schools. 

Belgium is the most densely populated country in Europe. 
Its population of more than seven millions is overwhelmingly 
Roman Catholic. It possesses one colony, the former Congo 
Free State, transformed into a colony in 1908. 

Leopold II died December 17, 1909, and was succeeded by 
his nephew Albert I. 



CHAPTER XXVI 

SWITZERLAND 

Switzerland in 1815 was a loose confederation of twenty- 
two states or cantons/ These varied greatly in their forms 
of government. A few were real democracies, the people 
meeting en masse at stated periods, generally in some mea- 
dow or open place, to enact laws and to elect officials to 
execute them. But these were the smaller and poorer can- 
tons. In others, the government was not democratic, but 
was representative. In some of these political power was 
practically monopolized by a group of important families, 
the patricians; in others by the propertied class. Most 
of the cantons, therefore, were not democratic, but were 
governed by privileged classes. The central government 
consisted of a Diet, which really was a congress of am- 
bassadors, who voted according to the instructions given 
them by the cantons that sent them. In the language 
of political science, Switzerland was not a federal state, 
but was only a federation of states. Its constitution was 

^.f 7?^' , the Pact of 1815, which was the work of a convention which 
stitution of . 1 1 Ti • • 1 /. 

1815. ^^^ ^^ Zurich and whose deliberations continued from April 

1814* to August 1815. Switzerland did not have a capital. 

The Diet sat alternately in three leading cities, Bern, Zurich, 

and Lucerne. 
The In Swiss institutions, therefore, the emphasis was put upon 

importance ^^^ cantons, not upon the confederation. This had been 
cantons. the case during the five hundred years of Swiss history, 

save during a short period of French domination under 

* Three of these were divided into " half-cantons," thus making in all 
twenty-five cantonal governments. A " half-canton " has the same powers 
in local government as has a whole canton. In federal affairs, however, 
it has only half the weight. Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 40, 

584 I 



SWITZERLAND IN 1815 585 

the Directory, and under Napoleon. The cantons retained 
all powers that were not expressly granted to the Diet. 
They had their own postal systems, their own coinage. A 
person was a citizen of a canton, not of Switzerland. Leav- 
ing his canton, he was a man without a country. Cantons 
might make commercial treaties with foreign powers. The 
Pact of 1815 said nothing about the usual liberties of the 
press, of public meeting, of. religion. These matters were, 
therefore, left in the hands of the cantons, which legislated 
as they chose, in some cases very illiberally. Several pos- 
sessed established churches, and did not allow any others. 
Valais did not permit Protestant worship, Vaud did not 
permit Catholic. Education was entirely a cantonal affair. 
Most of the cantons were neither democratic nor liberal, 
and it remained for the future to accomplish the unification 
of these petty states. 

For about fifteen years after 1815 most of the cantons 
followed generally reactionary policies. Then began the 
period which the Swiss call the era of regeneration, in which The "Era 

the constitutions of many of the cantons were liberalized ^ *®" 

1 1 . • /.IT 1 • 1 . 1 J J J- generation." 

by the recognition oi the classes hitherto excludea irom 

power, and now becoming clamorous. The cantonal govern- 
ments were wise enough to make the concessions demanded, 
such as universal suffrage, freedom of the press, equality 
before the law, before discontent appealed to force. Between 
1830 and 1847 there were nearly thirty revisions of cantonal 
constitutions. 

The same party which demanded liberal cantonal constitu- 
tions demanded a stronger central government. This, how- 
ever, was not effected so easily, but only after a short civil 
war, the war of the Sonderhund. 

As each canton possessed control of religion and education, 
it had come about that in the seven Catholic cantons the 
Jesuits had gained great influence, which they were striving 
to increase. The Radical party stood for liberty of re- 
ligion, secular education, a lay state. It wished to Increase 



586 SWITZERLAND 

the power of the central government, so that it might impose 
its views upon the whole confederation. For this reason 
the Catholic cantons were opposed to any increase of the fed- 
eral power, and wished to maintain the authority of the 
cantons untouched, for only thus could they maintain their 
views. Religious and political passions finally rose so high 
that in 1847 the seven Catholic cantons formed a special 
The Sender- league (Sonderbund), for the purpose of protecting the in- 
bund. terests which they considered threatened. They regarded 

their action as merely defensive against possible attack. The 
Radicals were, however, able to get a vote through the Diet 
ordering the disbandment of this league. As the members of 
the league refused to disband, a war resulted (1847). It was 
of brief duration and was over in three weeks. The victory, 
which did not cost many lives, was easily won by the forces of 
the federal government, which were much more numerous and 
better equipped than those of the league. The Sonder- 
hund was dissolved, the Jesuits were expelled, and the tri- 
umphant Radicals proceeded to carry out their cherished 
The Con- plan of strengthening the federal government. This they 
stitution of accomplished by the Constitution of 1848, which superseded 
the Pact of 1815. This constitution, with some changes, 
is still in force. It transformed Switzerland into a true 
federal union, resembling, in many respects, the United 
States. The Diet of ambassadors gave way to a represent- 
ative body with extensive powers of legislation. 
The The federal legislature was henceforth to consist of two 

Federal houses : the National Council, elected directly by the people, 

ment. ^^^ member for every 20,000 inhabitants ; and the Council 

of States, composed of two members for each canton. In 
the former, population counts ; in the latter, the equality 
of the cantons is preserved. The two bodies sitting to- 
gether choose the Federal Tribunal, and also a committee 
of seven, the Federal Council to serve as the executive. 
From this committee of seven they elect each year one who 
acts as its chairman and whose title is " President of the 



EVOLUTION OF SWISS DEMOCRACY 587 

Swiss Confederation," but whose power is no greater than 
that of any of the other members. It was recognized that 
there should be a single capital, and Bern was chosen as such, 
on account of its position on the border of the German- 
and French-speaking districts. 

Larger powers were now given to the confederation : the Powers of 
control of foreign affairs, the army, tariffs, the postal sys- ® federal 
tem, and the coinage. The cantons retain great powers, such cantonal 
as the right to legislate concerning civil and criminal matters, govern- 
religion, and education. ments. 

The new constitution was ratified by three-fourths of the 
cantons and two-thirds of the voters, and was put im- 
mediately into force. It converted an ancient league of 
states into a strong federal union. It created for the 
first time in history a real Swiss nation. This is one of 
the triumphs of the nationalistic spirit, of which Europe 
has seen so many in the nineteenth century. It is also a 
triumph of another of the motive forces of the century, 
the democratic spirit. The reform of the federal con- 
stitution in a manner satisfactory to the democratic de- 
mands of the time was only possible after a reform in the 
cantons in the direction of democracy. The cantonal re- 
form movement of the decade preceding 1848 was the con- 
dition precedent to the Constitution of 1848. 

Since 1848 Switzerland has pursued a course of peaceful ^^® chief 
development, but one of extraordinary interest to the out- ^ « -^ 
side world. This interest consists not in great events, not land, 
in foreign policy, for Switzerland has constantly preserved 
a strict neutrality, but in the steady and thoroughgoing 
evolution of certain political forms which may be of great 
value to all self-governing countries. There have been de- 
veloped in Switzerland certain processes of law-making the 
most democratic in character known to the world. The 
achievement has been so remarkable, the process so unin- 
terrupted, that it merits description. 

In all countries calling themselves democratic, the political 



588 SWITZERLAND 

machinery is representative, not direct, i.e., the voters do 
not make the laws themselves, but merely at certain periods 
choose people, their representatives, who make them. These 
laws are not ratified or rej ected by the voters ; they never 

Important come before the voters directly. But the Swiss have sought, 

contnbn- ^^^ ^-^.j^ great success, to render the voters law-makers 

tions to 1 J 

democratic themselves, and not the mere choosers of law-makers, to 

govern- apply the power of the democracy to the national life at 

ment. every point, and constantly. They have done this in various 

ways. Their methods have been first worked out in the 

cantons, and later in the confederation. 

The landes- Some of the smaller cantons have from time immemorial 

gemeinde j^ggj^ pu^e democracies. The voters have met together at 
cantons. , . ^ . . 

stated times, usually in the open air, and have elected their 

officials, and by a show of hands have voted the laws. There 

are six such cantons to-day. Such direct government is 

possible, because these cantons are small both in area and 

population. They are so small that no voter has more than 

fifteen miles to go to the voting place, and most have a 

much shorter distance. These mass meetings or Landes- 

gemeinden are not unwieldy, varying from 2,000 to 10,000. 

But in the other cantons this method does not prevail. 

In them the people elect representative assemblies, as in 

England and the United States, but they exercise a control 

over them not exercised in these countries, and which renders 

self-government almost as complete as in the six cantons 

described above. They do this by the so-called referendum 

and initiative. In the cantons where these processes are in 

vogue the people do not, as in the Landes gemeinde cantons, 

come together in mass meeting and enact their own laws. 

They elect, as in other countries, their own legislature, which 

enacts the laws. The government is representative, not 

democratic. But the action of the legislature is not final, 

only to be altered, if altered at all, by a succeeding legisla- 

The ture. Laws passed by the cantonal legislature may or must 

referendum, be referred to the people (referendum), who then have 



REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE 589 

the right to reject or accept them, who, in other words, 
become the law-makers, their legislature being simply a 
kind of committee to help them by suggesting measures 
and by drafting them. The referendum is of two kinds, 
optional and obligatory. The optional referendum requires 
that a law must be submitted to popular vote if a certain 
number of the voters petition for it. The proportion varies 
in the different cantons, ranging from a twelfth to a fifth 
of all the voters. The obligatory referendum requires, as 
the name implies, that all laws, or certain kinds of laws, shall 
be submitted without the need of petition. The obligatory 
form is the more democratic, requiring, as it does, a direct 
popular vote on every law. 

The initiative, on the other hand, enables a certain num- The 
ber of voters to propose a law or a principle of legislation ^^"is^"^©' 
and to require that the legislature submit the proposal to 
the people, even though it is itself opposed to it.^ If ratified 
the proposal becomes law. The initiative thus reverses 
the order of the process. The impulse to the making of 
a new law comes from the people, not from the legislature. 
The referendum is negative and preventative. It is the 
veto power given to the people. The initiative is positive, 
originative, constructive. By these two processes a democ- 
racy makes whatever laws it pleases. The one is the com- 
plement of the other. They do not abolish legislatures, 
but they give the people control whenever a sufficient number 
wish to exercise it. The constitution of the canton of 
Zurich expresses the relation as follows : " The people exer- 
cise the law-making power with the assistance of the state 
legislature." The legislature is not the final law-making 
body. The voters are the supreme legislators. These two 
devices, the referendum and the initiative, are intended to 
establish, and do establish, government of the people, and by 
the people. They are of immense interest to all who wish 

^ The number is about the same, in proportion to the whole number of 
voters, as is required in the case of the optional referendum. 



590 SWITZERLAND 

to make the practice of democracy correspond to the theory. 
By them Switzerland has more nearly approached democracy 
than has any other country. 
Spread This system has been mainly developed since 1848, though 

of the jj-g beginnings may be found earlier. Its growth constitutes 

and the ^^^ most important feature of Swiss political history in the 
initiative, last half century. It has been adopted wholly or in part in 
all of the representative cantons, with the exception of Frei- 
burg. It has also been introduced into the federal govern- 
ment. In 1874 the federal constitution was revised, and 
at that time the federal referendum was established, and 
since 1891 a kind of federal initiative exists, that is, the 
people have the right to initiate constitutional amendments, 
not ordinary laws, but, as no sharp line separates the two, 
the power is practically unrestricted. 

The Swiss have not only sought by these devices to sub- 
ordinate the representative system to the higher will of 
the people, but they have at the same time sought to perfect 
that system itself by making it a more exact expression 
of that will. The method advocated to accomplish this 
Proportional is proportional representation, by which minorities are given 
representa- weight in legislatures in proportion to their numbers. This 
system has been adopted in several cantons, and its ad- 
vocates urge its adoption in the others, and in the con- 
federation.* 

From being decentralized and undemocratic in 1815 

Switzerland has achieved during the century a considerable 

degree of centralization, and has become the most democratic 

country in the world. It has made great progress in educa- 

"^^ tion and in industry. The population has increased over 

\> c -^ a million since 1850, and now numbers about three and a 
of Switzer- _ _ ' 

land. hali millions. This population is not homogeneous in race 

or language. About 71 per cent, speak German, 21 per 

cent. French, 5 per cent. Italian, and a small fraction speak 

a peculiar Romance language, called Roumansch. But 

^ Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 75-83. 



THE NEUTRALITY OF SWITZERLAND 591 

language is not a divisive force, as it is elsewhere, as it is, 
for example, in Austria-Hungary and in the Balkan penin- 
sula, probably because no political advantages or disadvan- 
tages are connected with it. 

The neutrality of Switzerland is guaranteed by the powers. The 
From this fact, as well as from its central position, Switzer- J^eutrality 
land has come to play a unique and important part in , , 
international affairs. It has become the seat of a number 
of useful international institutions — the Red Cross Society, 
whose flag is the Swiss flag with colors reversed; the Inter- 
national Postal Union, the International Telegraph Union. 
It has also played an important role in the international 
peace movement. It was in Geneva, in 1872, that the most 
important work of international arbitration of the nineteenth 
century was accomplished, that which settled the controversy 
between the United States and Great Britain which grew 
out of the Alabama claims. 



Benmark 

loses 

Norway. 



CHAPTER XXVII 
THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 

DENMARK 

During the later wars of Napoleon Denmark had been 
his ally, remaining loyal to the end, while other allies had 
taken favorable occasion to abandon him. For this con- 
duct the conquerors of Napoleon punished her severely by 
forcing her by the Treaty of Kiel, January 1814, to cede 
Norway to Sweden, which had thrown in its lot with the Great 
Coalition. The condition of the Danish kingdom at the 
period of the opening of this history was deplorable, indeed. 
By the loss of Norway her population was reduced a third. 
Her trade was ruined, and her finances were in the greatest 
disorder. 

The Government was an absolute monarchy. Frederick 
VI was king from 1808 to 1839. Down to 1830 there 
was practically no political activity. The people were 
struggling to recover some measure of prosperity, the Gov- 
ernment was forced to pursue a quiet economical policy of 
routine to provide for the urgent needs of the state. The 
great war debt weighed heavily upon the nation. Not for 
a generation was it found possible to begin to reduce it. 

But after 1830 a liberal movement developed of sufficient 
strength to necessitate some action on the part of the King. 
Thinking to quiet it by mild concessions, he established 
Consultative ^^ 1834 four consultative estates — one for each of the prov- 
assemblies. inces into which Denmark was divided — the Islands, Jutland, 
Schleswig, and Holstein. These assemblies were to be 
chosen for six years by the landed proprietors, and were 
to meet biennially. They were to have the power to discuss 
laws and taxes, to present petitions, to criticise the Govern- 

592 



THE PROBLEM OF A CONSTITUTION 593 

ment. But they had no real authority, as they were merely 
consultative. The king might follow their advice, or accede 
to their petitions, or not, as he chose. Their meetings were 
behind closed doors, and their debates were not published. 

Obviously, such assemblies did not at all satisfy the de- 
mands of the Liberals, who desired a real constitution and a 
real parliament. This party had high hopes that the 
succeeding king. Christian VIII, who ruled from 1839 to 
1848, and who came to the throne with a reputation for 
enlightened and progressive ideas, would launch Denmark 
upon a career of liberalism, but their hopes were entirely 
disappointed. The agitation, therefore, continued, and 
grew so strong that Christian finally decided to grant a 
constitution, but he died before promulgating it. 

His successor, Frederick VII, issued a constitution in Constitu- 

June 1849, which was limited to the Islands and Jutland, ^°^ 

granted, 
and did not include the duchies, Schleswig and Holstein. 

In 1854 Frederick promulgated another constitution, and 
in 1855 still another. The difficulty was that the question 
of a constitution was bound up with that vastly complicated 
problem of the relation of the duchies, Schleswig and Hoi- ScWeswig- 
stein, to Denmark. This problem of the duchies dominated o ^ ^ • 
Danish politics during the entire reign of Frederick VII, 
from 1848 to 1863, never solved, and always highly disturb- 
ing. Under his successor. Christian IX, who reigned from 
1863 to 1906, the problem entered upon Its final phase, lead- 
ing, as we have seen elsewhere, to the war of 1864 between 
Denmark on the one hand and Prussia and Austria on the 
other. The result of that war was the loss of the duchies to 
the two powers by the Treaty of Vienna, October 30, 1864. Treaty of 
The question of the duchies was thus settled as far as Den- ^®^^^* 
mark was concerned. For the second time in the nine- 
teenth century Denmark suffered a dismemberment at the 
hands of the great military powers. This reduced her 
territorial extent by a third, her population by about a 
million. 



594- 



THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 



the Con- 
stitution. 



Since that war Denmark has pursued a policy of internal 
development, undisturbed by foreign politics. A constitu- 
Revision of tion was issued in 1866, a revision of that of 1849, and is 
still in force. By it a parliament of two houses was estab- 
lished, the Upper House or Landsthing, consisting of 66 
members, twelve of whom are appointed by the king for life, 
the others being chosen by the large taxpayers for a term 
of eight years ; and the Lower House, or Folkething, elected 
for three years by a wide suffrage. According to the con- 
stitution there should be one member for every 16,000 
inhabitants. There are, however, at present only 114 
members. 

For many years Christian IX ruled, relying on the Upper 
House in defiance of the wishes of the Lower. The dispute 
was over army reform and the budget, and the example 
followed was that of Bismarck in Prussia between 1862 and 
1866. In the end the King was victorious. Constitutional 
government during these years (1873-1894) really existed 
only in name. Latterly, the Radical party has increased, 
and in 1901 it gained an overwhelming victory. Recent 
legislation has been along radical lines. In 1891 an old age 
pension system was established. All over sixty years, of 
good character, are entitled to a pension, half of which is 
paid by the state, half by the local authority. There is 
no requirement of previous payments on the part of the 
recipients, as there is in Germany. The suffrage is pos- 
sessed by men of at least thirty years of age. Women 
have recently secured the right to vote in city and town 
elections, and are agitating to secure the same right in na- 
tional elections. Education is compulsory between the ages 
of seven and fourteen. The population of Denmark is over 
two million and a half. The area is about that of Switzer- 
land. 

Denmark has extensive possessions — Greenland, Iceland, 
the Faroe Islands, and the three small West Indian islands of 
St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. Of these the most 



Growth of 
radicalism. 



Denmark's 
colonies. 



RELATIONS OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY 595 

important is Iceland, 600 miles west of Norway, with an 
area of over 40,000 square miles and a population of about 
80,000. Iceland was granted home rule in 1874, and 
has its own parliament of thirty-six members. In 1874 
Iceland celebrated the thousandth anniversary of its settle- 
ment. The Faroes are not colonies, but parts of the kingdom. 
The present king is Frederick VIII, who has been on 
the throne since 1906. 

SWEDEN AND NORWAY 

Both Sweden and Norway were affected by the course 
of the Napoleonic wars. After the Treaty of Tilsit of 
1807, by which Russia and France became allies, Russia 
proceeded to gratify a long cherished ambition by seizing 
Finland from Sweden, thus gaining a large territory and 
a long coast line on the Baltic Sea. Later, Sweden, uniting 
with the Allies against Napoleon, was rewarded in 1814 
by the acquisition of Norway, torn from Denmark, which 
had adhered to Napoleon to the end, and which was accord- 
ingly considered a proper subject for punishment. 

The Norwegians had not been consulted in this transac- 
tion. They were regarded as a negligible quantity, a pas- 
sive pawn in the international game, a conception that 
proved erroneous, for no sooner did they hear that they 
were being handed by outsiders from Denmark to Sweden 
than they protested, and proceeded to organize resistance. 
Claiming that the Danish King's renunciation of the crown 
of Norway restored that crown to themselves, they pro- 
ceeded to elect a king of their own. May 17, 1814, and The Con- 
they adopted a liberal constitution, the Constitution of 
Eidsvold, establishing a parliament, or Storthing. 

But the King of Sweden, to whom this country had been 
assigned by the consent of the powers, did not propose 
to be deprived of it by act of the Norwegians themselves. 
He sent the Crown Prince, Bernadotte, into Norway to take 
possession. A war resulted between the Swedes and the 



596 THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 

Norwegians, the latter being victorious. Then the great 
powers intervened so peremptorily that the newly elected 
Norwegian king, Christian, resigned his crown into the 
hands of the Storthing. The Storthing then acquiesced 
in the union with Sweden, but only after having formally 
elected the King of Sweden as the King of Norway, thus 
asserting its sovereignty, and also after the King had prom- 
ised to recognize the Constitution of 1814, which the Nor- 
wegians had given themselves. 

Thus there was no fusion of Norway and Sweden. There 
Sweden and were two kingdoms and one king. The same person was 

Norway King of Sweden and King of Nonvay, but he governed each 

separate ,, . . , , , , . 

nations accordmg to its own laws, and by means or separate mm- 

under the istries. No Swede could hold office in Norway, no Nor- 
same king, -^rggian In Sweden. Each country had its separate constitu- 
tion, its separate parliament. In Sweden the parliament, 
or Diet, consisted of four houses, representing respectively 
the nobility, the clergy, the cities, and the peasantry. In 
Norway the parliament, or Storthing, consisted of two cham- 
bers. Sweden had a strong aristocracy, Norway only a 
small and feeble one. Swedish government and society were 
aristocratic and feudal, Norwegian very democratic. Nor- 
way, indeed, was a land of peasants, who owned their farms, 
and fisherfolk, sturdy, simple, independent. Each country 
had its own language, each its own capital, that of Sweden 
at Stockholm, that of Norway at Christiania. 

The two kingdoms, therefore, were very dissimilar, with 
their different languages, different institutions, and different 
conditions. They had in common a king, and ministers of 
war and foreign affairs. The connection between the two 
countries, limited as it was, led during the century to fre- 
quent and bitter disagreements, ending a few years ago in 
their final separation. 
The reign Charles XIII, the ruler in 1815, having no son, had 

of Charles adopted the French marshal, Bernadotte, as Crown Prince. 
XIII 

Bernadotte became king in 1818, and ruled as Charles XIV 



FRICTION BETWEEN NORWAY AND SWEDEN 597 

until his death in 1844. Under him only slight changes 
were made in the institutions of Sweden. He was opposed 
to reforms, and earnest in his resistance to the liberal 
parties. In an economic sense the prosperity of Sweden 
advanced considerably. Religious freedom was established. 
The debt was reduced. But the King would not consent 
to the chief demand of reformers for a radical change in 
the antiquated form of the Diet. Its division into four 
chambers played directly into his hands, as he could gen- 
erally oppose one or two chambers to the others, thus him- 
self exercising an authority practically free from control. 
The situation remained unchanged under his successor, Oscar 
I (1844-1859). Under Charles XV, however (1859-1872), 
this fundamental change was accomplished by the constitu- 
tional laws of 1866. The Diet was transformed into a The Corn- 
modern parliament, consisting of two chambers. Represen- stitutiou of 
tation by orders was abolished. Henceforth, there was to 
be an Upper Chamber, elected by communal councils for 
a term of nine years. As a high property qualification 
was required for membership, and as members of this house 
received no salaries, it really represented the noble and 
rich classes. The Lower Chamber was elected for three 
years, but, as a fairly high property qualification was re- 
quired for voters, it also represented property. Indeed, only 
about eight per cent, of the people possessed the suffrage 
under this constitution. Members of this Chamber received 
salaries. This system went into force in 1866, and remained 
in force until 1909. 

Under the next king, Oscar II, who ruled from 1872 to 
1907, the relations with Norway became acute, ending finally Friction 

in complete rupture. Friction between Norway and Sweden ''^^'^^^^ 
. . Sweden 

has existed ever since 1814, and has provoked frequent ^^^^ 

crises. The fundamental cause has lain in the different Norway. 

conceptions prevalent among the two peoples as to the 

real nature of the union effected in that year. The Swedes 

have maintained that Norway was unqualifiedly ceded to 



598 THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 

them by the Treaty of Kiel in 1814; that they later were 
willing to recognize that the Norwegians should have a 
certain amount of independence ; that they, nevertheless, pos- 
sessed certain rights in Norway and preponderance in the 
Union. The Norwegians, on the other hand, have main- 
tained that the Union rested, not upon the Treaty of Kiel, 
a treaty between Denmark and Sweden, but upon their 
own act; that they had been independent, and had drawn 
up a constitution for themselves, the Constitution of Eids- 
vold ; that they had voluntarily united themselves with Sweden 
by freely electing the King of Sweden as King of Norway; 
that there was no fusion of the two states ; that Sweden 
had no power in Norway; that Sweden had no preponder- 
ance in the Union, but that the two states were on a plane of 
entire equality. With two such dissimilar views friction 
could not fail to develop, and it began immediately after 1814< 
on a question of trivial importance. The Norwegians in- 
sisted upon celebrating as their national holiday May 17th, 
the date of their adoption of the Constitution of Eidsvold. 
The Swedes wished it to be November 4th, the day on which 
the King, Charles XIII, accepted and promulgated that con- 
stitution. The Norwegians then, in 1815, intended to man- 
age their own internal affairs as they saw fit, without any 
intermixture of Swedish influence. But their King was also 
King of Sweden, and, as a matter of fact, lived in Sweden 
most of the time, and was rarely seen in Norway. More- 
over, Sweden was in population much the larger partner 
in this uncomfortable union. 

By the Constitution of Eidsvold the King had only a 
suspensive veto over the laws of the Storthing, the Nor- 
wegian parliament. Any law could be enacted over that 
veto if passed by three successive Storthings, with intervals 
of three years between the votes. The process was slow, 
but sufficient to insure victory in any cause in which the 
Norwegians were in earnest. It was thus, that, despite the 
King's veto, they carried through the abolition of the Nor- 



DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION 599 

wegian nobility. Contests between the Storthing and the Abolition 
King* of Norway, occurring from time to time, over the ques- 
tion of the national flag, of annual sessions, and other mat- nobility, 
ters, kept alive the antipathy of the Norwegians to the Union. 
Meanwhile, their prosperity increased. Particularly did they 
develop an important commerce. One-fourth of the mer- 
chant marine of the continent of Europe passed gradually 
into their hands. This gave rise to a question more serious 
than any that had hitherto arisen — that of the consular 
service. 

About 1892 began a fateful discussion over the question 
of the consular service. The Norwegian Parliament de- 
manded a separate consular service for Norway, to be con- 
ducted by itself, to care for Norway's commercial interests, 
so much more important than those of Sweden. This the 
King would not grant, on the ground that it would break 
up the Union, that Sweden and Norway could not have two 
foreign policies. The conflict thus begun dragged on for 
years, embittering the relations of the Norwegians and the 
Swedes, and inflaming passions until in 1905 (June 7th) 
the Norwegian Parliament declared unanimously " that the 
Union with Sweden under one king has ceased." The war Dissolution 
feeling in Sweden was strong, but the Government finally de- "^ *^® 
cided, in order to avoid the evils of a conflict, to recognize 
the dissolution of the Union, on condition that the question 
of separation should be submitted to the people of Norway. 
Sweden held that there was no proof that the Norwegian 
people desired this, but was evidently of the opinion that 
the whole crisis was simply the work of the Storthing. That 
such an opinion was erroneous was established by the vote 
on August 13, 1905, which showed over 368,000 in favor 
of separation and only 184 votes in opposition. A confer- 
ence was then held at Carlstad to draw up a treaty or agree- Treaty of 
ment of dissolution. This agreement provided that any Carlstad. 
disputes arising in the future between the two countries, 
which could not be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, 



600 



THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 



Death of 
Oscar II. 



Suffrage in 
Norway. 



should be referred to the Hague International Arbitration 
Tribunal. It further provided for the estabhshment of a 
neutral zone along the frontiers of the two countries, on 
which no military fortifications should ever be erected. 

Later in the year the Norwegians chose Prince Charles 
of Denmark, grandson of the then King of Denmark, as 
King of Norway. There was a strong feeling in favor of 
a republic, but it seemed clear that the election of a king 
would be more acceptable to the monarchies of Europe, and 
would avoid all possibilities of foreign intervention. The 
new king assumed the name of Haakon VII, thus indicating 
the historical continuity of the independent kingdom of 
Nonvay, which had grown up in the Middle Ages. He took 
up his residence in Christiania. 

On December 8, 1907, Oscar II, since 1905 King of 
Sweden only, died, and was succeeded by his son as Gus- 
tavus V. 

In 1909 Sweden took a long step toward democracy. 
A franchise reform bill, which had long been before parlia- 
ment, was finally passed. Manhood suffrage was established 
for the Lower House, and the qualifications for election to 
the Upper House were reduced to the point that those en- 
joying an income of about $1,800 a year are eligible. 

In Norway, men who have reached the age of twenty-five, 
and who have been residents of the country for five years, 
have the right to vote. By a constitutional amendment 
adopted in 1907 the right to vote for members of the Stor- 
thing was granted to women, who meet the same qualifica- 
tions, and who, in addition, pay, or whose husbands pay, 
a tax upon an income ranging from about seventy-five dollars 
in the country to about one hundred dollars in cities. About 
300,000 of the 550,000 Norwegian women of the age of 
twenty-five, or older, thus secured the suffrage. They had 
previously enjoyed the suffrage in local elections. 

Sweden has a population of about five and a half million ; 
Norway of less than two and a half million. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

THE DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 
AND THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 

The Ottoman Empire, although it had been for a long 
time diminishing in size and in importance, was still very 
extensive in 1815. In Asia it included Asia Minor, Syria, 
the region of the Euphrates up to Persia, and the suzer- 
ainty of Arabia ; in Africa, it comprised Egypt and the 
northern coast of the continent as far as Morocco. In 
Europe it possessed the whole of the Balkan peninsula, and 
north of the Danube the principalities of Moldavia and 
Wallachia. It stretched, therefore, like a huge crescent 
round the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean 
from the Adriatic nearly to Spain. This vast empire had 
been for some time in danger of being conquered by foreign 
powers. Russia had, since the time of Catharine II, been 
pushing her way southward, by seizing Turkish soil. At Decay 
one time it seemed as if Russia and Austria, her two nearest °^ *^® 
neighbors, would divide the spoils between them, at another umpire, 
that Napoleon would direct his restless activity thither with 
damaging results. But the interests of European politics 
had kept these powers otherwise occupied, and had frustrated 
whatever designs they had had upon the Sultan's possessions. 
But there was another menace. The immediate danger was 
not from without but from within. The government of the 
Sultan was inefficient, its mechanism of control of its agents 
deplorably defective. The result was that in various parts 
of the empire those agents were using their power to found 
for themselves virtually independent states, with themselves Turkey in 
and their children as the royal lines. A process of dis- ^ismember- 
memberment was going on in Turkey such as had gone on ment. 

601 



602 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

in Germany In the Middle Ages under the feudal system. A 
large but loosely organized state was being broken up by 
the personal cupidity and ambition of its agents into small, 
compact, and energetic states. Thus Algiers and Tunis were 
only nominally parts of the empire, and the bond of vas- 
salage attaching them to the empire was not in 1815 
recognized by Europe. The Beys were real sovereigns. 
Thus, in Egypt, Mehemet Ali was really founding an in- 
dependent monarchy, and his son, Ibrahim, was already 
chosen as his successor. The process had even reached 
European Turkey, and, in Albania, Ali of Janina was en- 
deavoring to accomplish the same thing. The military 
system of the empire, once the terror of Europe, was now in 
decay, both in discipline, in leadership, and in equipment. The 
main object for a century had been defense, and not offense, 
and even that was beyond the competence of the government. 
This empire rested on a fundamental principle which, in the 
nineteenth century, was to prove a source of great weakness. 
Difference of religious belief was made the basis of the state. 
The population was divided into two classes, the Mohamme- 
dans and those who were not Mohammedans. The govern- 
ment had never attempted to fuse the two elements, but 
rather had always sharply differentiated them. The Mo- 
The ruling hammedans were the ruling class, and the^'^ were contemptu- 
class. Q^g Qf ^jjg others, to whom they applied the name rayahs, that 

is, unprotected herds destined only to serve. 

That part of the Ottoman Empire which lay in Europe was 

the smallest part by far, yet it has had the most eventful 

history and has furnished one of the most intricate and 

The contentious problems European statesmen have ever had 

Eastern to consider, the so-called Eastern Question. The Turks in 

Question. their conquest of southeastern Europe in the fourteenth and 

fifteenth centuries had subdued many different races ; the 

Greeks, claiming descent from the Greeks of antiquity; the 

Roumanians, claiming descent from Roman colonists of the 

empire; the Albanians, and various branches of the great 



THE SUBJECT PEOPLES 603 

Slavic race, the Servians, Bulgarians,^ Bosnians, and Monte- 
negrins. Full of contempt for those whom they had conquered, 
the Turks made no attempt to assimilate them nor to fuse 
them into one body politic. They were satisfied with reducing Treatment 
them to subjection, and with exploiting them. They left °^ subject 
them in a kind of semi-independence as far as administra- 
tion was concerned, allowing them to retain their civil laws 
and their local magistrates. These subject peoples were per- 
mitted the free exercise of their religion which, for most 
of them, was the Greek form of Christianity, but they were 
despised. While they enjoyed certain privileges they pos- 
sessed no rights. Their property might be confiscated, their 
lives taken in some moment of anger or suspicion or cupidity 
on the part of their rulers. They were flocks to be sheared, 
rayahs, victims of a government that was arbitrary, rapa- 
cious, capricious, and unrestrained. These Christian peoples 
were effaced for several centuries beneath Mussulman oppres- 
sion. They bore their ills with resignation as long as they 
thought it impossible to resist the oppression, yet they never 
acquiesced in their position. The Turks neither crushed nor 
conciliated. The subject peoples kept their own organiza- 
tions which sometime might be used as weapons. There 
were two causes always present which might at any moment 
bring about a conflagration, race hatred and religious animos- 
ity. There were other forces, also, active from time to time, 
but these were always present and were alone sufficient to 
render the Turkish government insecure. The decay of the 
Ottoman Empire, the rise of Russia, and the vast fame of the 
French Revolution seemed to indicate that the time had come 

^ The Bulgars, whose name is perpetuated in that of the present 
Kingdom of Bulgaria, were not a Slavic people but a Turanian or Tatar, 
akin to the Magj^ars and Turks. Crossing to the south of the Danube 
in the second half of the seventh century, they conquered a Slavic people 
previously settled there. But the same thing happened to them that 
happened to other barbarian invaders. They were assimilated by their 
subjects, whose language, moreover, they adopted. In language, in 
religion, in sympathies and aspirations they are Slavs. 



604 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



The revolt 
of the 
Servians. 



for revolt. The Servians were the first to rise, — in 1804 
under Kara George, a swineherd. The Turks were driven 
from Servia for a time, but they regained it in 1813. The 
Servians again arose, and in 1820, Milosch Obrenovitch, who 
had instigated the murder of Kara George in 1817, and 
who thus became leader himself, secured from the Sultan 
the title of " Prince of the Servians of the Pashalik of Bel- 
grade." His policy henceforth was directed to the acquisi- 
tion of complete autonomy for Servia. This, after long 
negotiations and strongly supported by Russia, he achieved 
in 1830, when a decree of the Sultan bestowed upon him the 
title of " Hereditary Prince of the Servians." Thus, after 
many years of war and negotiations, Servia had ceased to 
be a mere Turkish province, and had become a principality 
tributary to the Sultan, but autonomous, and with a princely 
house ruling by right of heredity — the house of Obrenovitch 
which had succeeded in crushing the earlier house of Kara 
George. This was the first state to arise in the nineteenth 
century out of the dismemberment of European Turkey. Its 
capital was Belgrade. 



THE GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 



The 

condition 
of the 
Greeks. 



The next of these subject peoples to rise against the hated 
oppressor was the Greeks. The Greeks had been submerged 
by the Turkish flood but not destroyed. In the eighteenth 
and early nineteenth centuries they had experienced a great 
reinvigoration of their racial and national consciousness. 
Their condition in 1820 was better than it had been for 
centuries, their spirit was higher and less disposed to bend 
before Turkish arrogance, their prosperity was greater. 
There had occurred in the eighteenth century a remarkable 
intellectual revival, connected with the restoration and purifi- 
cation of the Greek language. The ancient language had 
become almost extinct for all practical purposes. It was 
used, indeed, by the clergy and by the learned, but 



THE HETAIRIA PHILIKE 605 

the masses spoke it in a corrupted form, a dialect sadly 

mixed with all sorts of extraneous elements. Koraes, a 

Greek scholar, sought to purify the language of the people 

so that it would be possible for modern Greeks to read and 

understand the ancient classics, that thus all might be bound 

together intellectually by a sense of the common inheritance 

of a splendid intellectual past. He was remarkably success- Intellectual 

ful so that it has been said that what Luther's Bible did ^^''^^''^^l' 

for Germany, Koraes's editions of the classics, with their 

prefaces in modern Greek, have done for Greece. By this 

work the national consciousness of the people was greatly 

stirred and vivified. This was shown graphically in the 

single fact that the Greeks ceased to call themselves Romans, 

Romaioi, as they had done for centuries, and began to call 

themselves Hellenes once more. 

As in Italy and Spain and Germany, disaffection with the 
existing state of things was fostered by secret societies. It 
was such a society, the Hetairia Philike, or association of The 
friends, that began the Greek war of independence. This ^^^^^^^^ 
society was founded in 1814 after it had become clear that 
the Congress of Vienna would do nothing in behalf of the 
Christian subjects of the Sultan. Its object was the ex- 
pulsion of the Turk from Europe, and the re-establishment 
of the old Greek Eastern Empire, which had centuries before 
been overthrown by the invading Ottomans. The society 
relied upon gaining the support of Russia because of Russia's 
evident interest in the downfall of the Turkish power as likely 
to contribute to her own aggrandizement ; also because of 
religious sympathy. The Russians and the Greeks belonged 
to the same branch of Christians, and Russia looked upon 
herself, and was looked upon by others, as the natural 
defender of Greek Christians wherever they might be. The 
Hetairia increased with great rapidity from 1814-1820 until 
it included most prominent Greeks whether they lived in the 
Morea, in the Danubian provinces, in Constantinople, in 
Russia or elsewhere. By 1820 it was supposed to have 



606 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



The Greek 
war of 
independ- 
ence. 



The 

ferocity 
of the 
conflict. 



about 80,000 members. Many of the members of this asso- 
ciation were in the employ of the Tsar, a fact which gave 
great plausibility to its assertion that in the contest it was 
preparing it would receive the military aid of Russia. The 
association collected considerable sums of money, bought 
weapons, and only waited the favorable moment for be- 
ginning an insurrection against the Turks. 

Thus there was extensive preparation for the war which 
began in 1821, and lasted until the Greeks had achieved 
their independence in 1829- During the first six years, from 
1821-1827, the Greeks fought alone against the Turks. 
This period was followed by a period of foreign intervention. 
The war was one of utter atrocity on both sides, a war of 
extermination, a war not limited to the armies. Each side, 
when victorious, murdered large numbers of non-combatants, 
men, women, and children. The Greek war song, " The Turk 
shall live no longer, neither in Morea nor in the whole earth," 
shows the temper in which this people began its war of 
liberation. During the first few weeks they proved that 
this was intended to be no mere lyric but grim reality. The 
Turks who did not take refuge in the garrison towns were 
murdered with their families. The Turks immediately took 
their revenge. The Greeks in Constantinople were hunted 
down by the enraged Mohammedans, and on Easter Sunday, 
1821, the Patriarch or head of the Greek Church, a great 
and revered dignitary of eighty years, was hanged in his 
ecclesiastical robes in front of the Cathedral, and various 
bishops were also hanged. Nothing could have more horrified 
the members of the Greek Church, who looked upon the 
Patriarch as Catholics look upon the Pope. Nothing could 
have so surely deepened the ferocity of the conflict. When 
the Greeks later took Tripolitza, hitherto the seat of Turk- 
ish government in the Morea, they rioted in fearful carnage 
for three days until few inhabitants were left alive, and a 
Greek leader could say " that as he rode from the gateway 
to the citadel his horse's hoofs never touched the ground." 



GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 607 

The Turks replied by the blood-curdling massacre of Chios, 

whose inhabitants had long been favorably known for their 

culture, prosperity, and happiness. The statistics are but 

rough, but it is said that out of 90,000 inhabitants, 23,000 

were massacred, and 43,000 sold as slaves. 

The war continued, ineffectually prosecuted by Turkey, Factional 

which seemed at certain moments likely to crush the rebels <1^^"® ^ 

among 
completely, only to fail to do so by its own incompetence. ^^Q Greeks. 

This period was made still more wretched by the inability 
of the Greeks to work together harmoniously. Torn by 
violent factional quarrels, they were unable to gain any pro- 
nounced advantage. On the other hand, Turkey, unable 
to conquer by her own force, called upon the Pasha of Egypt, 
Mehemet Ali, for aid. This ruler had built up a strong, 
disciplined army, well-equipped and trained in European 
methods, a force far superior to any which the Sultan or the 
Greeks possessed. Under Ibrahim, the Pasha's son, an 
Egyptian army of 11,000 landed in the Morea early in 
1825, and began a war of extermination. The Morea was 
rapidly conquered. The fall of Missolonghi after a remark- 
able siege lasting about a year (April 1825-April 1826), 
with the loss of almost all the inhabitants, and the capture 
the following year of Athens and the Acropolis, seemed to 
have completed the subjugation of Greece. Few places re- 
mained to be seized. 

From the extremity of their misfortune the Greeks were Foreign 
rescued by the decision of foreign powers finally to intervene . 
The sympathy of cultivated people had, from the first, been 
aroused for the country which had given intellectual freedom 
and distinction to the world, this Mother of the Arts, which 
was now making an heroic and romantic struggle for an 
independent and worthy life of her own. Everywhere Phil- 
hellenic Societies were formed under this inspiration of the 
memories of Ancient Greece. These societies, founded in 
France, Germany, Switzerland, England and the United 
States, sought to aid the insurgents by sending money, arms. 



interven- 



608 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

and volunteers, and by bringing pressure to bear upon the 
governments to intervene. Many men from western Europe 
joined the Greek armies. The most illustrious of these was 
Lord Byron, who gave his life for the idea of a free Greece, 
dying of fever at Missolonghi in 1824. As Greek fortunes 
waned this movement became more vigorous. The new king 
of Bavaria, Louis I, sent money and numerous officers. In 
France, Lafayette, Chateaubriand and others worked pas- 
sionately for the Greek cause. Money, soldiers, arms, cloth- 
ing were sent in abundance by these volunteer societies of 
the west. Yet all this would have been insufficient to rescue 
Greece had not the monarchs of Europe brought the immense 
authority and power of their governments to bear upon the 
problem. Year after year the governments had refused to 
move. Metternich was no more a friend of revolution against 
the infidel Sultan than of revolution against the Holy Alli- 
ance. He wished to leave the Christians of Turkey to their 
fate, to let this revolt burn itself out " beyond the pale of 
civilization." " Three or four hundred thousand individuals 
hanged, butchered, impaled down there, hardly count," he is 
reported to have said, and for several years he was able to 
prevent the Greeks from receiving the aid of any foreign 
government. But the Greeks, by holding out against all 
odds, gave time for changes to occur in the attitude of other 
countries, 
"^liy England's foreign policy finally came under the direction 

ngland ^^ Canning, a firm friend of liberty abroad. Canning was 
opposed to the principles of the Holy Alliance. He also 
believed in the ultimate achievement of Greek independence, 
and he preferred to have the Greeks friendly to England 
rather than hostile. He also wished the preservation of the 
Turkish Empire as a bulwark against Russia in Eastern 
affairs. He did not wish Russia to intervene alone, and help 
the Greeks to independence, thus thereafter having the sup- 
port of the new state. He was also influenced by the fact 
that English bankers had made heavy loans to the Greeks. 



intervened. 



FOREIGN INTERVENTION 609 

It would be wise for England to interfere and bring this 

tangled question to a close favorable to her interests rather 

than to leave it to further hazard. 

In Russia there was a change of monarchs. Alexander I Why 

died in 1825, and was succeeded by Nicholas I. The new ^^^^* 

, intervened, 

monarch did not consider himself bound to the policy of the 

Holy Alliance. As soon as he saw England likely to take 
a hand in the Eastern Question his interest was not to let 
her do it alone. Ought England to be permitted to pre- 
empt the favor of the Greeks which they had been only too 
willing all along to give to Russia? Nicholas was indignant 
at the prospect. Furthermore, the public opinion of Russia 
was overwhelmingly in favor of intervention to save the 
Greeks. The motive was not the same as in the western coun- 
tries, — the desire to extend human liberty — the memory of 
Ancient Greece. The motive with the Russian masses was 
religious, a desire to prevent the Infidel of Constantinople 
from longer oppressing the members of the Orthodox Church 
to which they themselves belonged. 

In France all parties, liberal and conservative, were united Why 

in favor of the Greeks, — the liberals because of the prospect ^^^^^ ^" 

. tervened. 
of creating a new free state in Europe, and thus helping 

undermine the Holy Alliance, the royalists because they 
remembered the part the monarchy had played centuries 
before under Saint Louis in the Crusades against the injSdels. 
Politicians also believed that here was a chance to raise 
the prestige of France in international affairs by the humilia- 
tion of Austria which would be one of the results. 

Out of all these motives arose the Treaty of London of Treaty of 
1827. By this treaty the three powers, England, Russia ^^^'^o^- 
and France, on the ground that the conflict was of general 
concern owing to the injuries inflicted upon commerce, agreed 
to demand an armistice of Mahmud II and his consent to 
the erection of Greece as an autonomous state under Turkish 
sovereignty, to be therefore practically in the same situ- 
ation as Servia. The Sultan indignantly refused the arm- 



610 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



The 

battle of 
J^avarino. 



War 

between 

E.iissia 

and 

Turkey. 



istice. The three admirals of the allied fleet presented an 
ultimatum to Ibrahim, which was rejected. The consequence 
was a naval battle at Navarino, October 20, 1827, a battle 
which arose accidentally, but which ended in the destruction 
of the Turco-Egyptian fleet. The issue of Navarino was 
not the independence of Greece. The Allies had not in- 
tended to fight a battle with Turkey, but only to force 
an armistice upon the combatants, and then to compel recog- 
nition of the autonomy of Greece under the suzerainty of 
the Sultan. The effect of the battle was greatly to en- 
courage the Greeks, to delight the liberals throughout 
Europe, but to exasperate the Turks to a point where 
they lost all prudence. The Sultan demanded that the allied 
powers make ample reparation for the indignity and the 
damage which they had inflicted upon him while they pre- 
tended to be at peace. This was refused, though the new 
English ministry. Canning having recently died, shortly pro- 
nounced the battle of Navarino an " untoward event." The 
recriminations became so heated that the ambassadors of the 
Allies left Constantinople. The Allies could agree upon no 
definite policy immediately after Navarino. England re- 
fused reparation yet regretted the incident because it seemed 
to her that by weakening the power of the Sultan she 
was playing directly into the hands of Russia. Eng- 
land's policy was hesitating, cloudy, and unwise. She 
made no attempt to impose the Treaty of London, and let 
matters drift. 

Meanwhile, the Sultan, losing his self-control, called 
upon the faithful in a violent manifesto to take part in a 
holy war. This manifesto named Russia as the cause of 
the whole insurrection, and was full of venom. Russia de- 
sired nothing better than a war with Turkey, which she forth- 
with declared April 26, 1828. 

This Russo-Turkish war lasted over a year. In the first 
campaign the Russians were unsuccessful, but, redoubling 
their efforts, and under better leadership, they crossed the 



THE KINGDOM OF GREECE 611 

Balkans, and marched rapidly toward Constantinople. The 
French meanwhile had sent an army into the Morea, and had 
forced the Egyptian troops to leave the country and sail 
for Egypt. The Sultan was obliged to yield and the 
Treaty of Adrianople was signed with Russia September 
14, 1829. 

As the outcome of this series of events Greece became a Creation 
kingdom, entirely independent of Turkey, its independence . ^ 
guaranteed by the three powers, Russia, England, and ^f Greece. 
France. Russia gained a slight increase of territory in 
Asia, none in Europe. The Danubian principalities, Mol- 
davia and Wallachia, were made practically, though not 
nominally, independent. The Sultan's power in Europe 
was therefore considerably reduced. In 1833, Otto, a lad 
of seventeen, second son of King Louis I of Bavaria, became 
the first King of Greece. A new Christian state had been 
created in southeastern Europe. 

THE CRIMEAN WAR 

Russia emerged from the Turkish war with increased 
prestige and power. It had been her campaign of 1829 
that had brought the Sultan to terms. Greece had become 
independent, and was more grateful to her than to the other 
powers. Moldavia and Wallachia, still nominally a part The Prin- 
of Turkey, were practically free of Turkish control, and ^^^^ ^ ^^^' 
Russian influence in them was henceforth paramount. Sev- 
eral years later Russia was emboldened to attempt to extend 
her influence still further, and this attempt precipitated a 
reopening of the Eastern Question, and the first great 
European war since the fall of Napoleon I. 

Early in 1853 Nicholas I, of Russia, judging the moment Ambitions 
opportune, suggested to the English Government that the 
Turkish Empire was about to fall, and that it would be well 
for England and Russia to agree on the disposal of the 
property. " When we are agreed," he said, " I am quite 
without anxiety as to the rest of Europe; it is immaterial 



612 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



The Holy 
Places. 



War 
between 
Russia and 
Turkey. 



what others may think or do." He referred to the Turkish 
Empire as a sick man, a very sick man. The collapse of 
the Empire he felt to be imminent. It would be wise for 
the two powers most interested to arrange the division 
of the estate at once. He suggested that the European ter- 
ritories might be made into independent states, over which 
presumably Russia would have control; that England might 
have Egypt and the island of Crete, thus safeguarding her 
route to India ; he himself disclaimed any idea of adding 
Constantinople to his dominions. The English Government 
declined to enter into a consideration of the plan, and noth- 
ing came of this suggestion of the division of Turkey. 

For some time a quarrel had been going on between France, 
Russia, and Turkey, concerning the control of the " holy 
places " in Palestine, places connected with the birth and 
life of Christ, and therefore of interest to Christians, par- 
ticularly Roman Catholic and Greek, who were in the habit 
of making pilgrimages thither. This matter was finally 
arranged by negotiation, but the very day after the settlement 
of this dispute Russia peremptorily put forth a new demand 
upon the Sultan, namely the right of protection over all 
Greek Christians living in the Turkish Empire, of whom 
there were several millions. The demand was loosely ex- 
pressed and might possibly, if granted, grow into a constant 
right of intervention by Russia in the internal affairs of 
Turkey, that country consequently being reduced to a kind 
of vassalage to the former. This, at any rate, was the 
assertion of Turkey. The Sultan submitted this demand 
to the French and English Governments, which advised him 
to decline it. At once Russia sent troops into the Danubian 
Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, Turkish provinces, 
in order to enforce the compliance of the Sultan (June 1853). 
The Sultan demanded that the Russians withdraw from the 
Principalities. The demand was rejected, and war there- 
fore existed between the two powers, Russia and Turkey. 
Nicholas expected that the war would be limited to these 



COALITION AGAINST RUSSIA 613 

two. In this he was shortly undeceived, for England and 
France, and later Piedmont, came to the support of the 
Turks, and the first general European war since Napoleon's 
fall began. Russia found herself at war ultimately with four 
powers instead of with one. 

The motives that brought about this coalition against Coalition 
Russia are important. Englishmen looked upon Russia as against 
a strong power trying to maltreat a weak one. They re- 
membered that Russia had been the bulwark of conservatism 
in 1848 and 1849, that she had intervened to put down the 
Hungarians, no subjects of hers, who had almost won their 
independence. Many Englishmen were tired of the long 
peace and ready for a war. War feeling was strong among 
both Conservatives and Liberals. Lord Palmerston, a prom- 
inent member of the Cabinet, desired it. A long-standing 
dread of Russian expansion into regions too near the route 
to India also influenced the opinion of Englishmen. The 
French Emperor, Napoleon III, was inclined to war for 
several reasons. He had a personal grudge against Nich- 
olas I, who, forced to recognize him as Emperor in 1852, 
had sulkily addressed him at that time, not in the form 
usual among rulers, of " My Brother," but in the absurd 
phrase, in this case really insulting, of " My Dear Friend." 
Moreover, the treaties of 1815 were in the main still intact 
and were a striking memorial of the downfall of the Great 
Emperor. To destroy these treaties, and, if possible, to 
requite the humiliation of Moscow, would be a sweet revenge, 
and to throw military glory over his newly and trickily won 
throne would be a manifest advantage and a real pleasure. 
Piedmont joined the coalition in 1855 for reasons indicated Piedmont 
above, hoping to win an influential friend for the national- J°^^^ ^'^^ 
istic ambitions of Cavour. 

France and England joined Turkey in demanding the 
withdrawal of Russian troops from the Principalities. The 
demand was refused by the Tsar. The two powers then 
concluded a treaty with Turkey, promising military support. 



614 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Invasion 
of tlie 
Crimea. 



The 

siege of 
Sebastopol. 



/ 



and engaging not to make a separate treaty. On March 27, 
1854, they declared war upon Russia. 

The Turks meanwhile had been fighting the Russians in 
the region of the Danube. The French and Lhglish now 
joined them. After a confused campaign the Russians were 
defeated and forced back over the Danube, and, in June 
and July 1854, they withdrew entirely from the Principalities. 
The cause of the war was thus removed. England and 
France had demanded the evacuation of the Principalities. 
They were now evacuated. But England and France had 
ulterior purposes, and consequently the war continued. 
They desired to humiliate Russia, to weaken her decisively, 
to prevent her definitely from increasing her power in south- 
eastern Europe. Thinking to do this most completely, they 
invaded the Crimea, a peninsula in southern Russia, jutting 
out into the Black Sea (September 1854). The importance 
of the Crimea lay in the fact that Russia had constructed 
there, at Sebastopol, a great naval arsenal, and that the 
Russian navy was there. To seize Sebastopol, to sink the 
fleet would destroy Russia's naval power for many years, and 
thus remove the weapon with which she could seriously menace 
Turkey. 

The siege of Sebastopol was the chief feature of the 
Crimean war. That siege lasted eleven months. Defended 
in a masterly fashion by Todleben, the Russian engineer, 
and the only military hero of the first order that the war 
developed, Sebastopol finally fell after a murderous bom- 
bardment on September 8, 1855. Parts of this campaign, 
subsidiary to the siege, were the battles of the Alma, of 
Balaklava, rendered forever memorable by the splendid 
charges of the heavy and light brigades, and of Inkermann, 
full of stirring and heroic incident. The AlHes suffered 
fearfully from the weather, the bitter cold, the breakdown 
of the commissary department, and the shocking inefficiency 
of the medical and hospital service. These deficiencies were 
remedied in time, but only after a terrible loss of life. The 



END OF THE CRIMEAN WAR 615 

Russians suffered from the absence of roads and from the 
corruption of officials, as well as from the weather. It took 
a month fo. joldiers to come the hundred and twenty miles 
from the northern point of the Crimean peninsula to Sebas- 
topol. Tens of thousands of soldiers perished on the march 
from the various Russian cities southward. 

Early in 1855 (March 2), Nicholas I died, bitterly dis- 
appointed at the failure of his plans. Throughout the sum- 
mer of 1855 the state of Sebastopol grew steadily worse. 
The number of the killed was appalling, over a thousand 
a day. It was said by one of the victims of this siege 
" that statesmen who make wars lightly should be taken to 
see the hospital for incurable cases at Sebastopol." During 
the last twenty-eight days of the siege over a million and a 
half of projectiles were thro^vn into the place. The French 
excavations were over fifty miles in length. The long agony 
drew to a close, and on September 8, 1855, Sebastopol fell ^^^^ ®^ 
after a siege of 336 days, a siege which cost Russia probably 
250,000 lives, and an expenditure far out of proportion 
to her resources. 

The war dragged on for some weeks longer, but as most 
of the powers were anxious for peace, they agreed to enter 
the Congress of Paris, which met February 25, 1856, and Treaty of 
which, after a month's deliberation, signed the Treaty of 
Paris, March 30, 1856. The treaty provided that the Black 
Sea should henceforth be neutralized, that it should not be 
open to vessels of war, even of those countries bordering on 
it, Russia and Turkey, and that no arsenals should be 
established or maintained on its shores. Its waters were to 
be open to the merchant ships of every nation. The naviga- 
tion of the Danube was declared free. The Russian pro- 
tectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia was abolished, and 
they were declared independent under the suzerainty of 
the Porte. Russia was pushed back from all contact with 
the Danube by the cession of a small part of Bessarabia to 
Moldavia. The most important clause was that by which 



616 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Turkey- 
admitted 
to the 
European 
Concert. 



Results 
of the 
Crimean 
War. 



the powers admitted Turkey to the European Concert, from 
which she had been previously excluded, by which they also 
recognized and guaranteed the independence and territorial 
integrity of that country, and renounced all claim on their 
part, separately or collectively, to intervene in her internal 
affairs. This action was taken, it was said, because the 
Sultan had, " in his constant solicitude for the welfare of 
his subjects, issued a firman recording his generous in- 
tentions towards the Christian population of his Empire." 
This treaty was signed by the representatives of Turkey, 
England, France, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Piedmont. 
Thus closed a war which cost several hundred thousand 
lives. There was an uneasy feeling in governing circles 
after the war that little had been accomplished by this large 
and horrible expenditure, and that that little was not likely 
to endure. Future events justified this premonition. Just 
fourteen years later, during the Franco-German war, when 
Europe was powerless to prevent, Russia announced that 
she would no longer observe the provision concerning the 
neutrality of the Black Sea, and in 1878 she recovered the 
strip of Bessarabia that gave her access to the lower courses 
of the Danube. The promise of the Sultan that the lot of 
his Christian subjects should be improved was ignored. 
Their condition became worse. And the guaranty of the 
integrity of his empire, and the promise of the powers not 
to interfere in his domestic administration were to ring hol- 
low twenty years later. The Sultan gained in importance 
from this war; the French Emperor gained military glory 
and diplomatic prestige ; the King of Piedmont was shortly 
to be amply repaid for his efforts by the aid of Napoleon III 
in his Italian policy. The Crimean war had this further 
result that, showing the inefficiency of the Russian govern- 
ment, it was a main cause of the wave of reform which swept 
over that country in the early years of the reign of Alex- 
ander II. As a solution of the Eastern Question the war 
was a flat failure. 



MOLDAVIA AND WALLACHIA 617 

FROM THE TREATY OF PARIS TO THE TREATY OF 
BERLIN 

The Eastern Question is primarily that of the fate of 
European Turkey. Shall that country be preserved intact 
or shall it be dismembered; if the latter, what shall be the 
status of the part or parts taken from the Sultan? By the 
middle of the nineteenth century the solution of the question 
had not progressed far. The only part that had become 
independent was Greece, the founding of which kingdom has 
been traced. The Greeks, however, were not satisfied with 
their boundaries and cherished the fervent ambition that they 
might annex other parts of Turkey in which members of 
their race were living, and even entertained the hope of 
Constantinople, the possession of which priceless position 
forms the very crux of the whole Eastern Question. Two 
other sections of European Turkey had almost attained 
statehood, though they were still nominally provinces of 
Turkey : Servia and Moldavia-Wallachia. Both aspired to Moldavia- 
convert a semi-independence into complete independence. In wallacnia. 
Moldavia-Wallachia a national spirit had been slowly grow- 
ing up. The inhabitants, feeling that they were of the same 
stock, and ought to be thoroughly united, were growing 
accustomed to apply to themselves the single term, Rou- 
manians. They were proud of their ancient origin, of their 
language, largely of Latin origin, and of their history. 
They felt that they were destined to be masters in their 
own house, not pawns to be used by Turkey or Russia. 
The impulse toward nationality, so striking and fruitful a 
characteristic of the century, moved them, as it was moving 
Italians and Germans. The Crimean war facilitated the The 
realization of their ambitions. Though the Roumanians B-onmanians 
took no part in the war, they profited by it. By the Treaty cj-imean 
of Paris all Russian rights of protection over the provinces War. 
were abolished, and though the Sultan still remained their 
sovereign he promised to grant an " independent and national 



618 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

administration." England and France wished to go a step 
further, and to recognize the two provinces as an entirely 
independent state of Roumania. There would be a mani- 
fest advantage in that such a state would constitute a 
buffer between Russia and Turkey, standing right athwart 
the way to Constantinople, which they believed Russia 
coveted. But Austria and Turkey blocked this suggestion 
for the time being. The powers decided, in 1858, in a confer- 
ence held in Paris that, despite the wishes of the people for 
union, they should remain separate. There should be two 
princes or hospodars elected by representatives of the people, 
but invested with their powers by the Sultan. There should 
also be an assembly in each, but a kind of central committee 
should prepare legislation common to the " United Principali- 
ties of Moldavia and Wallachia," as they were officially 
called. This, of course, did not satisfy the inhabitants of 
the two Principalities, who felt that they were one in race 
and language and tradition, and ought to be one in fact. 
The Moldavians and Wallachians now proceeded to solve 
the matters to their taste, encouraged in this by Napoleon 
III, true to his favorite theory of nationalities. Each 
elected, early in 1859, the same man. Colonel Alexander 
The union of Couza, as its prince. This double election accomplished 
the Princi- ^j^g desired result. Thus the Principalities were united de 
facto. Austria was in no position to forbid this consumma- 
tion as she was then involved in war in Italy. Later the 
two assemblies were merged into one, and in 1862 the Sultan 
recognized these changes. Thus the Moldavians and Walla- 
chians had achieved their union, had assumed the name 
Roumania, and had chosen Bucharest as their capital. But 
it remained for them to attain complete independence. They 
Couza. still paid tribute to the Sultan, from whom their prince 

received his investiture. The new ruler, " Prince of Rou- 
mania," a native of Moldavia, styled himself Alexander 
John I, but he was always known by his family name of 
Couza. He ruled seven years. They were years of great 



CHARLES I OF ROUMANIA 619 

turbulence. The Prince was in constant conflict with the 
assembly, and ruled most of the time in defiance of the con- 
stitution. He alienated the influential classes of the clergy 
and nobility or great landowners, the former by confiscating 
the property of the monasteries, an act later vetoed by the 
powers unless the clergy should be indemnified, and the latter 
by freeing the peasants from their feudal dues, and trans- 
ferring most of the land to them on the condition that they 
pay for it in fifteen annual instalments. This was a bene- 
ficial social reform, somewhat resembling the liberation of 
the serfs in Russia. It created a class of about 400,000 
small proprietors. But, of course, it made the nobles his 
enemies. The masses, on the other hand, thus benefited, were 
off'ended by the tobacco monopoly which Couza introduced. 
A conspiracy was formed which, in 1866, succeeded in forc- 
ing him to abdicate. Convinced by this experience that it 
was unwise to raise one of their own citizens to the position 
of ruler, the Roumanians decided to call in a foreign prince. 
They chose a member of the Roman Catholic branch of the Charles I of 
Hohenzollern family who became Charles I of Roumania. ^.oumama. 
This German prince, who is still their ruler, was then twenty- 
seven years of age. He at once set to work to study the 
conditions of his newly adopted country, ably seconded in 
this by his wife, a German princess, whose literary gift was 
to win her a great reputation, and was to be used in the 
interest of Roumania. As " Carmen Sylva " she has writ- 
ten poems and stories, has published a collection of Rou- 
manian folklore, and has encouraged the national idea by 
showing her preference for the native Roumanian dress and 
for old Roumanian customs. 

Charles I was primarily a soldier, and the great work of 
the early years of his reign was to build up the army, as 
he believed it essential if Roumania was to be really inde- 
pendent in her attitude toward Russia and Turkey. He in- 
creased the size of the army, equipped it with Prussian guns, 
and had it drilled by Prussian officers. The wisdom of this 



620 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Beopening 
of the 
Eastern 
Qnestion. 



The insur- 
rection of 
Herzego- 
vina. 



was apparent when the Eastern Question was reopened in 
1875. The fact that she possessed an army of the modem 
type enabled Roumania to play an important part in the 
affairs of the Balkan peninsula. 

In 1875 the Eastern Question entered once more upon an 
acute phase. Movements began which were to have a pro- 
found effect upon the various sections of the peninsula. An 
insurrection broke out in the summer of 1875 in Herzegovina, 
a province west of Servia. For years the peasantry had 
suffered under the gross misrule of the Turks. Turkey, 
almost bankrupt, resorted to heavier taxation, especially of 
her Christian subjects. The oppression became so grinding 
and was accompanied by acts so barbarous and inhuman 
that the peasants finally rebelled. These peasants were 
Slavs, and as such were aided by Slavs from neighboring 
regions, Bosnia, Servia, and Bulgaria. They were made all 
the more bitter because they saw Slavs in Servia compara- 
tively contented, as they were largely self-governed. Why 
should not they themselves enjoy as good conditions as 
others.'' Religious and racial hatred of Christian and Slav 
against the infidel Turk flamed up throughout the penin- 
sula. The Balkan peoples also were stirred, as were so 
many others, by the sight of Italy achieving her independ- 
ence on the basis of nationality. The Turks did not suc- 
ceed in stamping out this dangerous movement at its com- 
mencement, encouraged as it was by the Slavs of Servia, 
Montenegro, and even Austria. Attempts were made by 
diplomacy to induce the Porte to make concessions sufficient 
to pacify the discontented Christians. The attempts failed, 
as the Christians placed no faith in Turkish promises and 
as the powers were not united in their demands, England 
rejecting the arrangement that seemed most likely to ensure 
peace by guaranteeing on the part of the powers the effec- 
tive execution of the Sultan's promise of reform. (Berlin 
Memorandum, 1876.) 

Meanwhile events occurred in Constantinople which greatly 



THE BULGARIAN ATROCITIES 621 

complicated the situation. In March 1876, the Sultan, Abdul- 
Aziz, was deposed by a palace revolution, and his nephew put 
upon the throne as Murad V. The new Sultan was shortly 
found to be, or at least was declared to be, imbecile, and was 
deposed after a reign of three months. Thereupon his Accession of 

brother, Abdul Hamid II, ascended the throne, a very res- ^^^^^ 

Hamid II. 
olute, subtle, and resourceful man. These rapid changes m 

Constantinople were due to a recrudescence of national and 
religious fanaticism in Turkey, to a feehng that Turkey 
should be for the Turks, that she should no longer be the 
sport of foreign powers, that she should control her own 
destinies without intervention. But the intervention of the 
Christian powers was becoming more and more inevitable 
because of this very revival of racial and religious fanati- 
cism. They could not rest easy witnessing the outrages 
committed upon their co-religionists. And just at this time 
those outrages attained a ferocity that shocked all Europe. 

Early in 1876 the Christians in Bulgaria, a large province The 
of European Turkey, rose against the Turkish officials, ^ ganan 
killing some of them. The revenge taken by the Turks was 
of incredible atrocity. Pouring regular troops and the 
ferocious irregulars called Bashi-Bazouks into the province, 
they butchered thousands with every refinement or coarse- 
ness of brutality. In the valley of the Maritza all but 
fifteen of eighty villages were practically destroyed. An 
official report to the English government of what occurred 
at Batak, a town of about 7,000 inhabitants, indicates 
graphically the style adopted and pursued. A Turk named 
Achmet Agha was ordered to attack it. " The inhabitants 
had a parley with Achmet who solemnly swore that if they 
gave up their arms not a hair of their heads should be 
touched. The villagers believed Achraet's oath and sur- 
rendered their arms, but this demand was followed by an- 
other for all the money in the village, which, of course, had 
also to be acceded to. No sooner was the money given up 
than the Bashi-Bazouks set upon the people and slaughtered 



622 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

them like sheep. A large number of people, probably about 
one thousand or twelve hundred, took refuge in the church 
and churchyard, the latter being surrounded by a wall. 
The church itself is a solid building and resisted all the 
attempts of the Bashi-Bazouks to burn it from the outside. 
They consequently fired in through the windows, and getting 
upon the roof tore off the tiles, and threw burning pieces 
of wood and rags dipped in petroleum among the mass of 
unhappy human beings inside. At last the door was forced 
in, the massacre completed, and the inside of the church 
burned. The spectacle which the church and churchyard 
present must be seen to be described; hardly a corpse has 
been buried. ... I visited this valley of the shadow 
of death on the 31st of July, more than two months and 
a half after the massacre, but still the stench was so over- 
powering that one could hardly force one's way into the 
church. In the streets at every step lay remains rotting 
and sweltering in the summer sun. Just outside the village 
I counted more than sixty skulls in a little hollow. From 
the remains of female wearing apparel scattered about it is 
plain that many of the persons here massacred were 
women." ^ This official estimated that in Batak alone the 
number of killed was about 5,000. 
Gladstone's The Bulgarian atrocities thrilled all Europe with horror. 

denunci- ^^ Gladstone, emerging from retirement, denounced " the 

ation of the » & & 

Turks. unspeakable Turk " in a flaming pamphlet called " Bul- 

garian Horrors and the Question of the East." He de- 
manded that England cease to support a government that 
was an affront to the laws of God, and urged that the Turks 
be expelled from Europe " bag and baggage." The Dis- 
raeli ministry dared not lend its support in behalf of Turkey, 
as it would have liked to do, so vehement was public 
opinion. It did not, however, intervene in behalf of the 
oppressed Christians. 

Servia and Montenegro, in July 1876, declared war 
* Baring's report. 



THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR 623 

against Turkey, and the insurrection of the Bulgarians Servia and 

became general. The Russian people became intensely ex- , °f e^egro 
. . . , , . ,. . . . declare war. 

cited in their sympathy with their co-religionists and their 

fellow-Slavs. Thousands of Russian volunteers enrolled 
under the Servian flag. But the Turks were able to over- 
come their enemies by force of superior numbers. Alex- 
ander II did not wish war, but on November 2, 1876, he said 
to the British ambassador that the present state of affairs 
in Turkey " was intolerable, and unless Europe was prepared 
to act with firmness and energy, he should be obliged to 
act alone." He would act, not for self-interest, but solely 
in the name of humanity. He had not " the smallest wish 
or intention to be possessed of Constantinople." Renewed 
attempts were made to settle the whole trouble by diplomacy. 
These attempts proved unsuccessful owing to the opposition 
of the Sultan, who was dominated by reactionary forces, and 
who felt certain that support would come from the west, par- 
ticularly from England. He remembered the Crimean war. 

Russia, tired of long drawn out and insincere negotia- Russia 
tions, declared war upon Turkey, April 24, 1877. She had declares 
as allies Roumania, which took occasion to proclaim its 
entire independence of Turkey (May 21, 1877), Servia, and 
Montenegro. The war lasted until the close of January 
1878. Crossing the Danube and pushing southward, the 
Russians gained some successes, and seized one of the passes 
through the Balkans. But the key to the campaign was the 
control of Plevna. This place, situated between the Danube 
and the Balkans, was the center of an extensive system of 
roads through Bulgaria. The Russians could not safely 
pass south of the Balkans without controlling this strategic 
position. They had made the mistake of allowing the Turk- 
ish commander, Osman Pasha, to occupy and to fortify it. 
The Russians made three vigorous attempts to carry it 
by storm, but were repulsed with heavy losses (July-Sep- 
tember 1877). It was evident that Plevna could not be The siege 
taken by assault but only by regular siege. Todleben, 



624? DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Treaty 
of San 
Stefano. 



Opposition 
to the 
treaty. 



who had distinguished himself greatly as the defender of 
Sebastopol in the Crimean war, was now placed in supreme 
command. By October 24th the investment was completed 
by an army numbering fully 120,000 men. The siege was 
slow but was finally successful. On December 10th, Osman 
surrendered an army of 43,000 soldiers and seventy-seven 
guns. His defense had been very brilliant. He had de- 
tained for five months an army three times as large as his own. 

The backbone of Turkish resistance was thus broken. 
Though it was mid-winter the Russians now poured through 
the passes of the Balkans, and marched rapidly toward 
Constantinople. On January 20, 1878, they entered Adrian- 
ople. The Sultan sought peace, and on March 3rd the 
Treaty of San Stefano was concluded between Russia and 
Turkey. By this treaty the Porte recognized the complete 
independence of Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania, and 
made certain cessions of territory to the two former states. 
The main feature of the treaty concerned Bulgaria, which 
was made a self-governing state, tributary to the Sultan. 
Its frontiers were very liberally drawn. Its territory was 
to include nearly all of European Turkey, between Roumania 
and Servia to the north, and Greece to the south. Only a 
broken strip across the peninsula, from Constantinople west 
to the Adriatic, was to be left to Turkey. The new state 
therefore was to include not only Bulgaria proper, but 
RoumeHa to the south and most of Macedonia. Mr. Glad- 
stone's desire for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe 
" bag and baggage " was nearly realized. 

But this treaty was not destined to be carried out. It 
satisfied no one except the Russians and the Bulgarians. 
There was much opposition to it in the Balkan peninsula 
itself. The Greeks opposed it because it cut short the ex- 
pansion they desired northward, particularly into Mace- 
donia. The Servians were opposed for a similar reason, 
as they wished a part of this territory now adjudged to 
Bulgaria. Many Servians lived in Macedonia. The Rou- 



THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN 625 

manians protested vehemently when they learned that, in 
reward for then' services to Russia at Plevna, they were to 
cede to Russia a part of their territory, Bessarabia, receiv- 
ing an inferior compensation in the Dobrudscha, a region 
about the mouths of the Danube. But more important was 
the opposition of the powers of western Europe. They did 
not wish to have the Eastern Question solved without their 
consent. England particularly, fearing Russian expansion England 

southward toward the Mediterranean, and believing; that .^ ^ ^ ^ 

» revision. 

Bulgaria and the other states would be. merely tools of 
Russia, declared that the arrangements concerning the penin- 
sula must be determined by the great European powers, that 
the Treaty of San Stefano must be submitted to a general 
congress on the ground that, according to the international 
law of Europe, the Eastern Question could not be settled by 
one nation but only by the concert of powers, as it affected 
them all. Austria joined the protest, wishing a part of 
the spoils of Turkey for herself. Russia naturally objected 
to allowing those who had not fought determine the outcome 
of her victory. But as the powers were insistent, particu- 
larly England, then under the Beaconsfield administration, 
and as she was in no position for further hostilities, she 

yielded. The Congress of Berlin was held under the presi- ^^® 

Consrrcss of 
dency of Bismarck, Beaconsfield himself representing Eng- Bg^j^j^ 

land. It drew up the Treaty of Berlin, which was signed 
July 13, 1878. By this treaty Montenegro, Servia, and 
Roumania were rendered completely independent of Turkey. 
The Greater Bulgaria of the Treaty of San Stefano was 
divided into three main parts, Macedonia, left as a part 
of Turkey under the direct authority of the Sultan, Eastern 
Roumelia, as a part of Turkey, but to be autonomous and 
to have a Christian governor appointed by the Sultan, and 
Bulgaria, to be still nominally a part of Turkey, but to be 
autonomous, with a prince to be elected freely by the Bul- 
garians, the election, however, to be confirmed by the Sultan 
with the assent of the powers. The various powers were not 



626 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

thinking of Turkey in all this, nor of the happiness of 
the people who had long been oppressed by Turkey. They 
found the occasion convenient for taking various Turkish 
possessions for themselves. Austria was invited to " occupy " 
and administer Bosnia and Herzegovina in the interest of 
the peace of Europe. Russia retained a part of Turkish 
Armenia, which she had conquered, and which included 
Ardahan, Kars, and Batoum. The Congress also forced 
Roumania to cede Bessarabia to Russia and to take the 
Dobrudscha as compensation. This made Roumania the 
enemy of Russia as the district ceded was peopled by Rou- 
manians, not by Russians. The powers recommended that 
the Sultan cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus to Greece, a 
recommendation only grudgingly complied with three years 
later. Before the meeting of the Congress, England had 
induced Turkey to permit her to occupy the island 
of Cyprus, and in return for this she undertook to 
guarantee the integrity of the Sultan's remaining dominions 
in Asia. 
Independ- As a result of this war, therefore, three Balkan states, 

ence of long in the process of formation, Montenegro, Servia, and 

Servia and' I^oumania, had become entirely independent of their former 
Eoumania. suzerain Turkey, and a new state, Bulgaria, had been called 
into existence, though still slightly subject to the Porte, and 
a new district. Eastern Roumelia, was assured a freer life, 
though denied union with Bulgaria. All this had been accom- 
plished as a result of the intervention of Russia. 

The Treaty of Berlin was not a final solution of the 

Eastern Question. In one of its most important provisions 

it did not endure ten years. The device of separating the 

Bulgarians north of the Balkans from the Bulgarians south 

of the Balkans, in spite of the entire racial and spiritual 

unity of the two, and the wishes of the two, of attempting 

TTnion ^^Iso to make the latter forget that they were Bulgarians 

of the two by the childish device of calling their province Eastern Rou- 

XI ganas. melJa, endured precisely seven years. In 1885 the Bui- 



THE TREATY OF BERLIN 627 

garians took matters into their own hands, declared them- 
selves united, and tore up this arrangement of the Congress 
of Berlin, and the powers were forced to look on in acquies- 
cence. The other arrangement of leaving Macedonia in the 
hands of Turkey simply raised another question, the Macedo- 
nian, which has since that day been a source of constant 
uneasiness to Europe, a recurrent cause of alarm, frequently 
threatening a general conflagration. As far as humanitarian 
considerations are concerned this disposition of jNIacedonia 
has been a colossal blunder. The Turks have not carried 
out the promised reforms, and the conditions of the people 
would certainly have been greatly improved had Macedonia Macedonia, 
been a part of Bulgaria as provided by the Treaty of San 
Stefano. This determination of the fate of Macedonia, 
which was the essential difference between the two treaties, 
was one wholly deplorable. Owing to the rival ambitions of 
the western powers Macedonian Christians were destined 
long to suffer an odious oppression from which more fortu- 
nate Balkan Christians were free. 

On the other hand, the benefits assured by the Treaty of 
Berlin were great and unmistakable. Before the Russo- 
Turkish war the population of European Turkey was about 
seventeen or eighteen million. As a result of the Treaty of 
Berlin, European Turkey was greatly reduced, and its popu- 
lation was only about six million. In other words eleven 
million people or more had been emancipated from Turkish 
control. This constituted an important partition of Turkey. 
Yet the powers had, in 1856, guaranteed the territorial 
integrity and the independence in internal affairs of the 
Ottoman Empire, a guarantee as farcical as many others 
made in the course of the history of this Eastern Question. 

BULGARIA SINCE 1878 

The Treaty of Berlin, while it brought substantial ad- 
vantages, did not bring peace to the Balkan peninsula. The 
history of the various states since 1878, both in internal 



628 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Alexander 
of Batten- 
berg^. 



affairs and in their foreign relations, has been agitated, 
yet, despite disturbances, considerable progress has been 
made. 

Bulgaria, of which Europe knew hardly anything in 1876, 
was, in 1878, made an autonomous state, but it did not 
attain complete independence, as it was nominally a part of 
the Turkish Empire, to which it was to pay tribute. The 
new principality owed its existence to Russia, and for several 
years Russian influence predominated in it. It was started 
on its career by Russian officials. A constitution was drawn 
up establishing an assembly called the Sobranje. This 
assembly chose as Prince of Bulgaria, Alexander of Batten- 
berg, a young German of twenty-two, a relative of the 
Russian Imperial House, supposedly acceptable to the Tsar 
(April 1879). 

The Bulgarians were grateful to the Russians for their 
aid. They recognized those who remained after the war 
was over as having all the rights of Bulgarian citizens, 
among others the right to hold office. Russians held im- 
Friction portant positions in the Bulgarian ministry. Russians 
between the organized the military forces and became officers. Before 
^fl^th^^'^^ long, however, friction developed, and gratitude gave way 
Russians. ^^ indignation at the high-handed conduct of the Russians, 
who plainly regarded Bulgaria as a sort of province or out- 
post of Russia, to be administered according to Russian 
ideas and interests. The Russian ministers were arrogant, 
and made it evident that they regarded the Tsar, not Prince 
Alexander, as their superior, whose wishes they were bound 
to execute. The Prince, the native army officers, and the 
people found their position increasingly humiliating. Fi- 
nally, in 1883, the Russian ministers were virtually forced 
to resign, and the Prince now relied upon Bulgarian leaders. 
This caused an open breach with Russia which was further 
widened by the discovery of an unsuccessful Russian plot 
to kidnap Alexander. 

Meanwhile, the resentment of the Bulgarians of Eastern 



UNION OF THE TWO BULGARIAS 629 

Roumelia at their separation from Bulgaria by the Treaty 
of Berhn steadily increased, and in 1885 a bloodless revolu- 
tion was carried through which destroyed this artificial Breacli 
arrangement. The people of that province expelled the rep- °^ *^® 
resentative of Turkish authority, and expressed their en- . _ .. 
thusiastic desire for union with Bulgaria. Prince Alex- 
ander was forced to choose between the Russians, whom he 
knew to be opposed to this aggrandizement of Bulgaria, and 
his own people and those of Eastern Roumelia, who were 
eager for the union. He chose the latter and became the 
" Prince of the Two Bulgarias." It was expected that in- 
ternational complications would result, that Europe would 
insist upon the observance of the Treaty of Berlin. But 
the moment for collective intervention was not propitious, 
owing mainly to the extraordinarily tangled internal political 
conditions in various countries. The wrath of Russia was 
great, and was shown in her recall of all Russian oflScers 
from the Bulgarian army, leaving the army demoralized ggj™:. 
in its leadership. Just at this moment, Servia, claiming attacks 
that the union of Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria would Bulgaria, 
overthrow the equilibrium of the Balkan states, jealous of ^^' 
the aggrandizement of her neighbor, and believing that her 
army was disorganized, and that the European nations would 
chastise her for her action in regard to Eastern Roumelia, 
suddenly attacked her. Bulgaria took up the gauntlet, en- 
thusiasm fired her army, and, crippled as she was, to the 
astonishment of Europe she expelled the Servians, severely 
defeated them, and invaded their own country only to be 
stopped by Austria, which insisted upon a treaty between 
the combatants on the basis of the situation before the war 
(Treaty of Bucharest, March 3, 1886). Bulgaria gained 
no territory by this war, but she gained prestige. She 
stood before Europe in a new light, and the war really 
founded her unity. In the face of the unanimous desire 
of the people, it was seen to be futile to insist on the 
separateness of Roumelia, now swallowed up in Bulgaria. 



630 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Al)dicatioii 
of Prince 
Alexander. 



Ferdinand 
of Saxe- 
Coburg. 



Dictator- 
ship of 
Stambuloff. 



The powers protested against this unification, and would 
not recognize the change, but they refrained from doing any- 
thing further, 

Russia, however, incensed at the growing independence 
of the new state, which she looked upon as a mere satel- 
lite, resolved to read her a lesson in humility by organizing 
a conspiracy. The conspirators seized Prince Alexander 
in his bedroom in the dead of night, forced him to sign 
his abdication, and then carried him off to Russian soil. 
Alexander was detained in Russia a short time, until it 
was supposed that the Russian party was thoroughly estab- 
lished in power in Bulgaria, when he was permitted to go 
to Austria. He was immediately recalled to Bulgaria, re- 
turned to receive an immense ovation, and then, at the 
height of his popularity, in a moment of weakness, abdicated, 
apparently overwhelmed by the continued opposition of 
Russia (September 7, 1886). The situation was most crit- 
ical. Two parties advocating opposite policies confronted 
each other; one pro-Russian, believing that Bulgaria should 
accept in place of Alexander any prince whom the Tsar 
should choose for her ; the other national and independent, 
rallying to the cry of " Bulgaria for the Bulgarians." The 
latter speedily secured control, fortunate in that it had a 
remarkable leader in the person of Stambuloff, a native, a 
son of an innkeeper, a man of extraordinary firmness, supple- 
ness, and courage, vigorous and intelligent. Through him 
Russian efforts to regain control of the principality were 
foiled and a new ruler was secured, Prince Ferdinand of 
Saxe-Coburg, twenty-six years of age, who was elected unan- 
imously by the Sobranje, July 7, 1887. Russia protested 
against this action, and none of the great powers recognized 
Ferdinand. 

Stambuloff was the most forceful statesman developed in 
the history of the Balkan states. He succeeded in keeping 
Bulgaria self-dependent. During the earlier years of his 
rule Ferdinand relied upon him, and, indeed, owed to him his 



DICTATORSHIP OF STAMBULOFF 631 

continuance on the throne. He won the pretentious title 
of " the Bulgarian Bismarck." His methods resembled those 
of his Teutonic prototype in more than one respect. For 
seven years he was practically dictator of Bulgaria. Rus- 
sian plots continued. He repressed them pitilessly. His 
one fundamental principle was Bulgaria for the Bulgarians. 
His rule was one of terror, of suppression of liberties, of 
unscrupulousness, directed to patriotic ends. His object 
was to rid Bulgaria of Russian, as of Turkish control. 
Bulgaria under him increased in wealth and population. 
The army received a modern equipment, universal military 
service was instituted, commerce was encouraged, railroads 
were built, popular education begun, and the capital, Sofia, 
a dirty, wretched Turkish village, made over into one of 
the attractive capitals of Europe. But Stambuloff made 
a multitude of enemies, and as a result he fell from power 
in 1894. In the following year he was foully murdered Murder of 
in the streets of Sofia. But he had done his work thoroughly, Stambuloff. 
and it remains the basis of the life of Bulgaria to-day. 
The Turkish sovereignty was merely nominal, and even that 
was not destined to endure long. In March 1896 the election 
of Ferdinand as prince was finally recognized by the great 
powers. The preceding years had been immensely significant. 
They had thoroughly consolidated the unity of Bulgaria, 
had permitted her institutions to strike root, had accustomed 
her to independence of action, to self-reliance. Those years, 
too, had been used for the enrichment of the national life 
with the agencies of the modern world, schools, railways, an 
army. Bulgaria had a population of about four million, a 
capital in Sofia, an area of about 38,000 square miles. She 
aspired to annex Macedonia, where, however, she was to en- 
counter many rivals. She only awaited a favorable oppor- 
tunity to renounce her nominal connection with Turkey. 
The opportunity came in 1908. On October 5th of that 
year Bulgaria declared her independence, and her Prince 
assumed the title of King. 



632 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



ROUMANIA AND SERVIA SINCE 1878 



Soumania 
proclaimed 
a kingdom. 



Agrarian 
disturb- 
ances. 



At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1877, Rou- 
mania declared herself entirely independent of Turkey. This 
independence was recognized by the Sultan and the powers 
at the Congress of Berlin on condition that all citizens 
should enjoy legal equality, whatever their religion, a condi- 
tion designed to protect the Jews, who were numerous, but 
who had previously been without political rights. 

In 1881 Roumania proclaimed herself a kingdom, and 
her prince henceforth styled himself King Charles I. The 
royal crown was made of st6el from a Turkish gun cap- 
tured at Plevna, a perpetual reminder of what was her 
war of independence. Roumania has created an army on 
Prussian models of about 175,000 men, has built railroads 
and highways, and has, by agrarian legislation, improved the 
condition of the peasantry. The population has steadily 
increased, and now numbers nearly seven million. The area 
of Roumania is about 50,000 square miles. While mainly 
an agricultural country, in recent years her industrial de- 
velopment has been notable, and her commerce is more im- 
portant than that of any other Balkan state. Her govern- 
ment is a constitutional monarchy, with legislative chambers. 
The most important political question in recent years has been 
a demand for the reform of the electoral system, which 
resembles the Prussian three-class system, and which gives 
the direct vote to only a small fraction of the population. 
In 1907 the peasantry rose in insurrection, demanding 
agrarian reforms. As more than four-fifths of the popula- 
tion live upon the land, and as the population has steadily 
increased, the holding of each peasant has correspondingly 
decreased. A military force of 140,000 men was needed 
to quell the revolt. After having restored order, the 
ministry introduced and carried various measures in- 
tended to bring relief to the peasants from their severest 
burdens. 



CONDITIONS IN SERVIA 633 

Servia, also, was recognized as independent by the Berlin Servia. 
Treaty in 1878. She proclaimed herself a kingdom in 1882. 
She has had a turbulent history in recent years. In 1885 
she declared war against Bulgaria, as has been stated, only 
to be unexpectedly and badly defeated. The financial policy 
was deplorable. In seven years the debt increased from 
seven million to three hundred and twelve million francs. 
The scandals of the private life of King Milan utterly dis- 
credited the monarchy. He was forced to abdicate in 1889, 
and was succeeded by his twelve-year-old son, Alexander I, 
who was brutally murdered in 1903 with his wife. Queen 
Draga, in a midnight palace revolution, and the present 
occupant of the throne, Peter I, has been in most unstable 
power since then. The present King is of the house of 
Karageorge, which has ended its century-long feud with 
the house of Obrenovitch by exterminating the latter in the 
murders of 1903. While some progress has been made 
along economic and educational lines, the condition of the 
country is far from satisfactory. The present regime is 
odious by reason of the manner of its origin. Its duration 
is problematical. 

GREECE SINCE 1833 

In January 1833, Otto, second son of Louis I, the King 
cf Bavaria, became King of Greece, a country of great 
poverty, with a population of about 750,000, unaccustomed 
to the reign of law and order usual in western Europe. The 
kingdom was small, with unsatisfactory boundaries, lacking 
Thessaly, which was peopled entirely by Greeks. The coun- 
try had been devastated by a long and unusually sanguinary 
war. Internal conditions were anarchic. Brigandage was 
rife; the debt was large. The problem was, how to make 
out of such unpromising materials a prosperous and pro- 
gressive state. 

King Otto reigned from 1833 to 1862. He was aided Reign of 
in his government by many Bavarians, who filled important ®**° ^* 



634 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

positions in the armj and the civil service. This German 
influence was a primary cause of the unpopularity of the 
new regime. The beginnings were made, however, in the 
construction of a healthy national life. Athens was made 
the capital, and a university was established there. A 
police system was organized; a national bank created. In 
1844 Otto was forced to consent to the conversion of his 
absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. A parlia- 
ment with two chambers, the Deputies being chosen by uni- 
versal suffrage, was instituted. The political education of 
the Greeks then began. 

From the reopening of the Eastern Question by the 
Crimean war Greece hoped to profit by the enlargement 
of her boundaries. The great powers, however, thought 
otherwise, and forced her to remain quiet. Because the 
Government did not defy Europe and insist upon her rights, 
which would have been an insane proceeding, it became very 
unpopular. For this reason, as well as for despotic tend- 

Overthrow encies. Otto was driven from power in 1862 by an insurrec- 

of Otto. tion, and left Greece, never to return. 

A new king was secured in the person of a Danish prince, 
who became George I, in 1863, and who still rules, a brother 
of the present King of Denmark (1909). That his popu- 
larity might be strengthened at the very outset, England 

The Ionian in 1864 ceded to the kingdom the Ionian Islands, which she 

Islands. j^g^^j j^gl^j since 1815. This was the first enlargement of 

the kingdom since its foundation. A new c-onstitution was 
established (1864) which abolished the Senate and left all 
parliamentary power in the hands of a single assembly, 
the Boule, elected by universal suffrage, and consisting of 
192 members, with a four-year term. Political parties have 
been little more than personal or local coteries, struggling 
for office as a means of livelihood. In 1881, mainly through 
the exertions of England, the Sultan was Induced to cede 

Annexation Thessaly to Greece, and thus a second enlargement of terri- 
tory occurred. This was in accordance with the promise 



UNREST IN THE BALKAN STATES 635 

of the Congress of Berlin that the Greek frontier should be 
" rectified." 

In 1897 Greece declared war against Turkey, aiming at 
the annexation of Crete, which had risen in insurrection 
against Turkey. Greece was easily defeated, and was forced 
to cede certain parts of Thessaly to Turkey and give up the 
project of the annexation of Crete. After long negotia- 
tions among the powers, the latter island was made auton- 
omous under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and under the 
direct administration of Prince George, a son of the King 
of Greece,^ who remained in power until 1906. 

Greece is not in sound financial condition. Her debt is 
very large, having grown owing to armaments, the building 
of railroads, and the digging of canals. The country has 
advanced in population and now numbers about two and 
a half millions. Her wealth has increased, and much has 
been accomplished in the direction of popular education. 
Her parliamentary history has been troubled by incessant 
factional disputes. Since the accession of the present King 
in 1863 there have been about fifty ministries. It is esti- 
mated that the Greeks now number about eight millions. 
The large majority, therefore, live outside the Greek 
kingdom. 

None of these Balkan states is satisfied with its present Aspirations 
boundaries. Roumania wishes to include in the kingdom the °^ *^® 
Roumanians of Russian Bessarabia, and of eastern Hungary, gtafgo 
Servians dream of a Greater Servia, to include those of 
their race in Bosnia and Herzegovina and southern Hungary, 
a dream that recent events seem to have forever dissi- 
pated. Bulgarians desire the annexation of parts of 

' A constitution was promulgated for Crete in 1899 which has since 
been superseded by the constitution of 1907, which provides for an as- 
sembly of sixty-five members, elected for three years. The High Com- 
missioner, or chief executive, is appointed by the King of Greece with 
the assent of the four protecting powers. Great Britain, France, Russia, 
and Italy. Questions concerning the foreign relations of Crete are de- 
termined by the representatives of these powers. 



636 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

Macedonia, or all of it. The Greeks desire Macedonia and 
Crete. They dream of a Greater Greece, dominating the 
^gean. 

Servian, Bulgarian, and Greek rivalries meet in the plains 
of Macedonia, which each country covets, and which is in- 
habited by representatives of all these peoples hopelessly 
intermixed. The problem of Macedonia is further com- 
plicated by the rivalry of the great powers, and by the 
transformation which Turkey is herself undergoing. 

REVOLUTION IN TURKEY 

The Eastern Question entered upon a new and startling 
phase in the summer of 1908. In July a swift, sweeping, 
and pacific revolution occurred in Turkey. The Young 
The Young Turks, a liberal, revolutionary, constitutional party, dom- 
Turks. inated by the political principles of western Europe, seized 

control of the government, to the complete surprise of the 
diplomatists and public of Europe. This party consisted of 
those who had been driven from Turkey by the despotism 
of the Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, and were resident abroad, 
chiefly in Paris, and of those who, still living in Turkey, dis- 
sembled their opinions and were able to escape expulsion. Its 
members desired the overthrow of the despotic, corrupt, and 
inefficient government, and the creation in its place of a 
modern liberal system, capable, by varied and thoroughgoing 
reforms, of ranging Turkey among progressive nations. 
Eevolution Weaving their conspiracy in silence and with remarkable 
of July adroitness, they succeeded in drawing into it the Turkish 

army, hitherto the solid bulwark of |he Sultan's power. 
Then, at the ripe moment, the army refused to obey the 
Sultan's orders, and the conspirators demanded peremptorily 
by telegraph that the Sultan restore the Constitution of 
1876, a constitution granted by the Sultan in that year 
merely to enable him to weather a crisis, and which, having 
quickly served the purpose, had been immediately suspended 
and had remained suspended ever since. The Sultan, seeing 



TURKEY A CONSTITUTIONAL STATE 637 

the ominous defection of the army, comphed at once with Restoration 
the demands of the Young Turks, " restored " on July 24th ^f the 
the Constitution of 1876, and ordered elections for a parHa- ^^^^^ 
ment, which should meet in November. Thus an odious 
tyranny was instantly swept away. It was a veritable coup 
d'etat, this time effected, not by some would-be autocrat, but 
by the army, usually the chief support of despotism or of the 
authority of the monarch, now, however, the chief instrument 
for the achievement of freedom for the democracy. This 
military revolution, completely successful and almost blood- 
less, was received with incredible enthusiasm throughout the 
entire breadth of the Sultan's dominions. Insurgents and Apparent 
soldiers, Mohammedans and Christians, Greeks, Serbs, Bui- ■unanimity 
garians, Albanians, Armenians, Turks, all joined in jubilant j^g^gj^jg^t^ 
celebrations of the release from intolerable conditions. The 
most astonishing feature was the complete subsidence of the 
racial and religious hatreds which had hitherto torn and rav- 
aged the Empire from end to end. The revolution proved to 
be the most fraternal movement in modem history. Pictur- 
esque and memorable were the scenes of universal reconcilia- 
tion. The ease and suddenness with which this astounding 
change was effected proved the universality of the detesta- 
tion of the reign and methods of Abdul Hamid II through- 
out all his provinces and among all his peoples. 

It is a significant fact that, since the defeat of Russia 
by the Japanese in 1904-05, and apparently as a conse- 
quence of that defeat, autocracy has been greatly undermined 
in eastern Europe, its last stronghold. Russia has its Duma, 
Persia in Asia its constitution, Austria its universal suf- 
frage, Turkey its new regime. 

The Young Turks, who thus seized control of the gov- 
ernment in July 1908, forcing the Sultan to obey their 
orders, illustrated excellently two of the dominant passions 
of the nineteenth century, the spirit of nationality and the ^ j^^q^qj.^, 
spirit of democracy. They wished to modernize and ener- j^ed 
gize their country by comprehensive reforms in civil ad- Turkey 



638 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

ministration, in the judicial system, in the army and navy, 
in education, and in economic conditions. Thus Turkey, 
modem and liberal, would be strong enough in the loyalty and 
well-being of its citizens to assert its position in the world 
as one of the family of nations. The Young Turks were 
a patriotic and liberal party, intent upon maintaining the 
integrity of the Empire, and upon gaining political and 
civil freedom for the people. Might not the old racial and 
religious feuds disappear under a new regime, where each 
locality would have a certain autonomy, large enough to 
insure essential freedom in religion and in language.'* Might 
not a strong national patriotism be developed out of the 
polyglot conditions by freedom, a thing which despotism 
had never been able to evoke.'' Might not Turkey become 
a stronger nation by adopting the principle of true tolera- 
tion toward all her various races and religions.'' Had not 
the time come for the elimination of these primitive but 
hardy prejudices and animosities .f* Might not races and 
creeds be subordinated to a large and essential unity.'' Might 
this not be the final, though unexpected, solution of the 
famous Eastern Question.'' Such, at least, was the evident 
hope of the Young Turks. They desired to realize the 
social solidarity represented in their cry, " One Flag, One 
People." But at best the problem of so vast a transforma- 
tion would be very difficult. The unanimity shown in the 
joyous destruction of the old system might not be shown 
in the construction of the new, as many precedents in Euro- 
pean history proved. If Turkey were left alone to con- 
centrate her entire energy upon the impending work of 
reform, she might perhaps succeed. But she was not to 
be left alone now any more than she had been for centuries. 
Attitude of The Eastern Question has long perplexed the powers of 
foreign Europe, and has at the same time lured them on to seek 

their own advantage in its labyrinthine mazes. It is con- 
spicuously an international problem. But the internal re- 
form of Turkey might profoundly alter her international 



BREACHES OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN 639 

position by increasing the power of the Empire. Thus it 
came about that the July Revolution of 1908 instantly 
riveted the attention of European powers and precipitated 
a series of startling events. Might not a reformed Turkey, 
animated with a new national spirit, with her army and 
finances reorganized and placed upon a solid basis, attempt 
to recover complete control of some of the possessions which, 
as we have seen, had been really, though not nominally and 
technically, torn from her — Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, 
Crete, possibly Cyprus, possibly Egypt? There was very 
little evidence to show that the Young Turks had any such 
intention or dreamed of entering upon so hazardous an 
adventure. Indeed, it was quite apparent that they asked 
nothing better than to be left alone, fully recognizing the 
intricacy of their immediate problem, the need of quiet for its 
solution. But the extremity of one is the opportunity of 
another. 

On October 3rd Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria- Austria- 
Hungary announced, through autograph letters to various ^ ^ ^ 
rulers, his decision to incorporate Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and 
definitively within his empire. These were Turkish prov- Herzego- 
inces, handed over by the Congress of Berlin in 1878 to ^^^^' 
Austria-Hungary for " occupation " and administration, 
though they still remained officially under the suzerainty 
of the Porte. On October 5th Prince Ferdinand of Bui- Bulgaria 
garia proclaimed, amid great ceremony, the complete in- 
dependence of Bulgaria from Turkish suzerainty, and as- g^^g 
sumed the title of King. Two days later the Greek popula- 
tion of the island of Crete repudiated all connection with 
Turkey and declared for union with Greece. On the same 
day, October 7th, Francis Joseph issued a proclamation to 
the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina announcing the annex- 
ation of those provinces. Against this action Servia pro- 
tested vigorously to the powers, her parliament was imme- 
diately convoked, and the war spirit flamed up and threat- 
ened to get beyond control. Ferdinand was prepared to 



640 DISRUPTION 



^HE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



The powers 

do not 

prevent 

these 

t?reaches 

of the 

Berlin 

Treaty. 



defend the independence of Bulgaria by going to war with 
Turkey, if necessary. 

These startling events immediately aroused intense excite- 
naent throughout Europe. They constituted violent breaches 
of the Treaty of Berlin. The crisis precipitated by the 
actions of Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria brought all the 
great powers, signatories of that treaty, upon the scene. 
It became quickly apparent that they did not agree. Ger- 
many made it clear that she would support Austria, and Italy 
seemed likely to do the same. The Triple Alliance, there- 
fore, remained firm. In another group were Great Britain, 
France, and Russia, their precise position not clear, but 
plainly irritated at the defiance of the Treaty of Berlin. 
A tremendous interchange of diplomatic notes ensued, of 
which the public is not fully informed. 

Gradually, however, the situation cleared, and the war 
cloud, the most threatening that had loomed over Europe 
in many years, disappeared. On examination and reflection 
certain facts stood forth indubitable. It was evident that 
Austria would not recede from the annexation of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, that she was prepared for war, and 
would be supported by Germany. Russia, lamed by the 
disastrous war with Japan, with her army disorganized and 
her finances in bad condition, was in no position to play 
her usual role of protector of the Balkan Slavs. More- 
over, she was bound by a treaty with Austria, which had 
hitherto been known only to a few, to consent to the very 
action Austria had taken. Great Britain and France were 
not disposed or able to go to war with the two great military 
monarchies of central Europe, even had the reason seemed 
sufficient. On the other hand, as signatories of the Treaty 
of Berlin, they could not consent to the flouting of that 
agreement by one of its parties without a serious loss cl 
self-respect and prestige. Meanwhile, the Turks protested 
against these infractions of their rights, but with admirable 
self-control refrained from warlike acts. 



PREDICAMENT OF SERVIA 641 

The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, an- 
nounced that Great Britain could not admit " the right of 
any power to alter an international treaty without the con- 
sent of the other parties to it, and it, therefore, refuses to 
sanction any infraction of the Berlin Treaty and declines to 
recognize what has been done until the views of the other 
powers are known, especially those of Turkey, which is more 
directly concerned than any one else." 

Thereupon Turkey and Bulgaria announced themselves 
as in favor of peace. Austria-Hungary let it be known that, 
while she would not give up the annexation of the provinces, 
she was not unwilling to compensate Turkey for their loss. 
The Greeks manifested a disposition to wait a while before 
consummating their plan in regard to Crete. Russia, 
France, and England urged the calling of a congress to 
take the whole subject under consideration, a suggestion 
which was not accepted. Since November 1908 the tangle 
has been unraveling. Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria are 
negotiating with Turkey for the recognition of the status 
quo, willing to indem.nify Turkey by cash payments for 
her losses. 

Of all the states the most aggrieved is Servia, and the Servia. 
most helpless. For years the Servians have entertained the 
ambition of uniting Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Monte- 
negro, peopled by members of the same Servian race, thus 
restoring the Servian empire of the Middle Ages, and gain- 
ing access to the sea. This plan is blocked, apparently 
forever. Servia cannot expand to the west, as Austria 
bars the way with Bosnia and Herzegovina. She cannot 
reach the sea. She alone of all the states in Europe, with 
the exception of Switzerland, is in this predicament. Thus 
she can get her products to market only with the consent 
of other nations. Feeling that she must thus become a 
vassal state, probably to her enemy, Austria-Hungary, seeing 
all possibility of expansion ended, all hopes of combining the 
Serbs of the Balkans under her banner frustrated, the feeling 



642 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 



Opening 

of the 

Turkish 

Parliament, 



The 

counter- 
revolution 
of April, 

1S09. 



The Young 
Turks 
regain 
control. 



was strong that war, even against desperate odds, was 
preferable to strangulation. 

The remarkable aspect of the whole history was that 
the reforming Young Turk party was able to survive blows 
so damaging to Turkey's prestige, to pursue a moderate 
policy when a warlike one would have been most natural. 
Meanwhile, the new Turkish Parliament had been chosen, 
and was formally opened by the Sultan on December 17, 
1908, amid great enthusiasm. It consisted of two chambers, 
a Senate, appointed by the Sultan, and a Chamber of Depu- 
ties, elected by the people, in the ratio of one member for 
every fifty thousand males of the population. 

But shortly events of a startling nature occurred, which 
seemed to mean the abrupt termination of this experiment 
in constitutional and parliamentary government, and to seal 
the doom of the Young Turks. Their power rested on 
their control of the army. Suddenly that control appeared 
to vanish. On April 13, 1909, without warning, thousands 
of troops in Constantinople broke into mutiny, denounced 
the Young Turks as tyrants, surrounded the Parliament 
House and the War Office, and demanded the removal of the 
ministry and of the president of the Chamber of Deputies. 
Constantinople was in a panic. There was much looting 
of houses and some loss of life. The Minister of Justice 
was killed, the Minister of Marine was wounded. Promi- 
nent Young Turk leaders fled for their lives. The city was 
terrorized. At the same time sickening massacres occurred 
in Asia Minor, particularly at Adana, showing that the 
religious and racial animosities of former times had lost 
none of their force. It seemed that the new regime was 
about to founder utterly. A counter-revolution was to undo 
the work of the revolution of July. 

But the counter-revolution lasted just eleven days. The 
Young Turks did not lie down supinely, but at once joined 
issue with the insurgents. Mobilizing quickly the troops 
which were loyal to them in Salonika, Adrianople, and other 



OVERTHROW OF ABDUL HAMID II 643 

places they began a march upon the capital, resolved to 

wrest it from the grasp of the reactionary party. They 

entered it on April 24th, and after many hours of fighting 

gained complete control. Thus, for the first time since 

1453, Constantinople was taken by an attacking army. It 

is interesting to note that the rapid interplay of nation 

upon nation, so striking a characteristic of the present age, 

was illustrated here. The method followed in the capture 

of the city was suggested by a chief of staff, who had seen 

it applied successfully by the Japanese in Manchuria during 

the war with Russia. 

The Young Turks were again in power. Holding that 

the mutiny had been inspired and organized by the Sultan, 

who had corrupted the troops so that he might restore the 

old regime, they resolved to terminate his rule. On April Deposition 

27th Abdul Hamid II was deposed, and was immediately ^: ^^^^j 

. . ■, Hamid II. 

taken as a prisoner of state to Salonika, a city intensely 

loyal to the reformers. Thus ended a reign of thirty-three 
years, a shameful chapter in Turkish history. Under Abdul 
Hamid II Turkey had lost extensive territories — Servia, 
Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Crete, Cyprus, and, for all 
practical purposes, Egypt and the Soudan ; had experienced 
extreme demoralization in every branch of the public service ; 
and had become virtually bankrupt. Only in the army 
had any constructive work been accomplished. This, re- 
modeled and drilled by German officers, had revealed its 
quality in the Turco-Greek War of 1897, and is now an 
efficient instrument for progress in the hands of the re- 
formers. 

Abdul Hamid II was succeeded by his brother, whom he Mohammed 
had kept imprisoned many years. The new Sultan, Mo- ^• 
hammed V, was in his sixty-fourth year. He at once ex- 
pressed his entire sympathy with the aims of the Young 
Turks, his intention to be a constitutional monarch. 

Thus the Young Turks find their power consolidated and 
increased as a result of these events. Whether they will 



644 DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 

be able to raise an ignorant and impoverished people, 
debased by long misrule, to a state of enlightenment and 
prosperity, will be able to render them capable of self- 
government, the future alone can tell. Even if they reveal 
the mighty statesmanship required, will they be permitted 
to work out their own salvation? Will the European powers 
abandon the ambitions they have cherished for centuries 
of aggrandizement at the expense of Turkey? Is not the 
real reformation of the Turkish Empire the last thing they 
desire? Will they not take advantage of future troubles 
likely to arise? Will they, indeed, not cause troubles 
themselves in order, under their cover, to advance their own 
interests? The Eastern Question is probably not yet solved. 
Meanwhile, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by 
Austria-Hungary, and the independence of Bulgaria, have 
been formally recognized by the signatories of the Treaty 
of Berlin. 



CHAPTER XXIX 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER I 

Russia in 1815 was the largest state in Europe, and 
was a still larger Asiatic empire. It extended in unbroken 
stretch from the German Confederation to the Pacific 
Ocean. Its population was about 45,000,000. Its Euro- 
pean territory covered about 2,000,000 square miles. It 
was inhabited by a variety of races, but the principal one was 
the Slavic. Though there were many religions, the religion 
of the court and of more than two-thirds of the population 
was the so-called Greek Orthodox form of Christianity. 
Though various languages were spoken, Russian was the 
chief one. The Russians had conquered many peoples in 
various directions. A considerable part of the former King- Russian 
dom of Poland had been acquired in the three partitions ^^^Muests. 
at the close of the eighteenth century, and more in 1815. 
Here the people spoke a different language, the Polish, 
and adhered to a different religion, the Roman Catholic. 
In the Baltic provinces, Esthonia, Livonia, and Courland, 
the upper class was of German origin and spoke the German 
language, while the mass of peasants were Finns and Lithu- 
anians, speaking different tongues. All the inhabitants 
were Lutherans. Finland had recently been conquered from 
Sweden. The languages spoken there were Swedish and 
Finnish, and the religion was Lutheran. To the east and 
south were peoples of Asiatic origin, many of them Moham- 
medans in religion. There were in certain sections con- 
siderable bodies of Jews. 

All these dissimilar elements were bound together by their 
allegiance to the sovereign, the Tsar, a monarch of absolute, 

645 



646 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



The 
nobility. 



unlimited power. There were two classes of society in 
Russia — the nobility and the peasantry. The large ma- 
jority of the latter were serfs of the Tsar and the nobility. 
The nobility numbered about 140,000 families. Some of 
the nobles were very wealthy. It is estimated that 1,500 
of them possessed more than a thousand serfs each, that 
2,000 others possessed over iSve hundred each, while 17,000 
possessed more than two hundred each. But more than 
four-fifths of them, that is, about 120,000 were quite poor, 
with only a few serfs each. The nobles secured offices 
in the army and the civil service. They were exempt from 
many taxes, and enjoyed certain monopolies. Their power 
over their serfs was extensive and despotic. They enforced 
obedience to their orders by the knout and by banishment 
to Siberia. The middle class of well-to-do and educated 
bourgeoisie, increasingly important in the other countries 
of Europe, practically did not exist in Russia. Russia was 
an agricultural country, whose agriculture, moreover, was 
very primitive and inefficient. It was a nation of serfs 
and of peasants little better off than the serfs. This class 
was wretched, uneducated, indolent, prone to drink excess- 
ively. In the " mir," or village community, however, it 
possessed a rudimentary form of communism and limited 
self-government. 

Over this vast and ill-equipped nation ruled the Autocrat 
of All the Russias, or Tsar, an absolute monarch, whose 
decisions, expressed in the form of ukases or decrees, were 
Alexander I, the law of the land. The ruler in 1815 was Alexander I, 
a man thirty-eight years of age. Ascending the throne 
in 1801, he played a commanding role in the later Napoleonic 
era. Under him Russia took a leading part in the politics 
and wars of Europe. Allied with Napoleon in 1807, he broke 
away from him in 1811, and from that time was his constant 
and powerful foe. In early life he had had as tutor Colonel 
Laharpe, a Swiss, who inspired principles of liberalism and 
humanitarianism in the mind of his quick and receptive pupil. 



The 
peasantry. 



1777-1825. 



LIBERALISM OF ALEXANDER I 647 

For several years after his accession he followed a pro- 
gressive and reforming policy. The times, however, were 
not propitious for any sweeping changes. From 1805 to 
1815 Russia was almost incessantly at war, and it is esti- 
mated that she lost in these wars nearly a million and a 
quarter of men, most of whom died from sickness or the 
privations of war, rather than in battle. The national 
debt and the burden of taxation had necessarily been im- 
mensely augmented. Moreover, blocking the way of re- 
form was an administrative service thoroughly honeycombed 
with corruption, so that even the official historian of the 
period after 1815 could only say, " Everything was cor- The 
rupt, everything unjust, everything dishonest." Such con- corruption 
ditions constituted a serious restraint upon the initiative goygrn- 
and work of the ruler. ment. 

In 1815 Alexander I stood forth as the most liberal 
sovereign on any of the great thrones of Europe. In the 
reorganization of Europe in 1814 and 1815 he was, on the 
whole, a liberal force. He it was who insisted upon reason- 
ably generous terms to France, on the part of the victorious 
allies ; who insisted that Louis XVIII should grant con- 
stitutional liberties to the French people; who, at the 
Congress of Vienna, favored, though ineffectually, the 
aspirations of the German people for a larger political 
life. 

He showed his liberal tendencies even more unmistakably 
in his Polish policy. He succeeded at the Congress of 
Vienna in securing most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, 
which he now transformed into the Kingdom of Poland. Poland, 
This was a state of 3,000,000 inhabitants, with an area 
less than one-sixth the size of the former Polish kingdom, 
but containing the Polish capital, Warsaw. This was hence- 
forth to be an independent kingdom, not a part of Russia. 
The only connection between the two was in the person of 
the ruler. The Tsar of Russia was to be King of Poland. 
Alexander intended to make this revived, though incomplete, 



648 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

Poland, a constitutional state. He granted a constitution 
in 1815, which created a Diet of two chambers, to meet every 
two years, and to have the power to make laws and to 
examine the budget. He granted liberty of the press and 
of religion. The Polish language was to be the official 
language in the administration and in the army. Poland en- 
joyed freer institutions at this moment than did either Prussia 
or Austria. The franchise was wider than that of England 
or France. Apparently, also, Alexander considered his Pol- 
ish experiment as preliminary to an introduction of similar 
reforms in Russia also. 
Alexander's Returning to Russia from Warsaw, Alexander showed 
progressive jjj many ways his desire to be a progressive and beneficent 
nolicv ruler. He thought much on what was long the fundamental 

problem of Russia, the emancipation of the serfs. There 
were 16,000,000 peasants on the vast domains that belonged 
to the Crown alone. The condition of these he sought to 
improve. But the general problem was so vast, his own 
will so unsteady, that it was solved neither by him nor by 
his successor. It was, however, a fact of importance that 
a Tsar had conspicuously indicated that this was the great 
national evil, which must be removed before Russia could be- 
come either free or progressive. The Emperor's opinion 
could not fail to have a formative influence. Alexander 
devoted his attention also to healing the wounds and repair- 
ing the waste of the long wars. His activity was incessant 
and varied. He endeavored to make the administration 
efficient, and to hunt out and punish corruption, which had 
flourished abundantly during his long absences and his pre- 
occupation with foreign aff^airs and war, but his success 
was slight. Prison reform was undertaken. Hospitals and 
asylums received generous support. That famine might be 
avoided, in a country where transportation was very difficult 
owing to poor roads, he gave orders for the establishment 
in every district of magazines of corn. He encouraged 
foreign commerce. 



ALEXANDER I AND METTERNICH 649 

In foreign policy, also, Alexander threw his influence on liberal 

the side of liberalism, in France, in Germany, in Italy, even in foreign 

Dolicv« 
Spain; supporting through his agents in those countries 

those who wished constitutional forms of government. Con- 
sequently, for some time, he was the main obstacle in the 
path of Metternich, the apostle of reaction. As Mettemich, 
however, possessed the stronger character, and as Alexander 
was easily discouraged, the result of their rivalry was ulti- 
mately the triumph of the former. Mettemich had exercised 
little influence over Alexander at the Congress of Vienna in 
1814-1815, but three years later, at the Congress of Aix-la- Alexander 
Chapelle, he ceaselessly played upon the Emperor's essen- ^^comes 
tially timid nature, pointing out the significance of liberal- 
ism, how it ended in anarchy, the loss of respect of all human 
authority, how in the interest of civilization it must be 
stamped out. Illustrations were forthcoming to point the 
argument; the election to the French Chamber of Deputies 
of Radicals ; the actions of the German students ; the murder 
of Kotzebue, one of the Tsar's own agents; the mutiny of 
one of the St. Petersburg regiments ; the spread of secret 
societies. The Tsar was won to a policy of repression, 
and his support was after 1818 the main bulwark of Met- 
temich's policy of intervention, which expressed itself in 
the various congresses and which made the name of the Holy 
Alliance a by-word among liberals. Events at home further 
altered the Tsar's domestic policy. He became disappointed 
over the failure of his attempts to give Poland constitutional 
liberty. Those attempts were always unpopular in Russia. 
Why should Poland, the old and dangerous enemy, be fa- 
vored by generous concessions not awarded to Russia her- 
self? Would not such liberty be used simply to build up 
the former nation to the detriment of Russia? Russian abso- Friction 
lutists and reactionaries were opposed on principle to all with the 
constitutions, and feared that the Tsar's experiment might ^°^^^' 
be a step toward the introduction of a constitutional regime 
in Russia itself. The actions of the Poles served this party 



of Alex 
ander I 



650 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

well, for they took their liberties seriously, and the Diet 
criticised freely the proposals of the Government. The 
Tsar, feeling that those whom he had favored were un- 
grateful, and swinging to the conservative side in general, 
began to cool. The Diet rejected in 1820 a measure sub- 
mitted by the Government. Alexander then modified the 
constitution, and restricted the freedom he had granted by 
excluding the public from the sessions of the Diet and for- 
bidding the publication of its debates. The liberal period 
of a brief five years was soon over. 

The Poles replied by conspiring. Profoundly depressed 
by what he regarded as the ingratitude of the world, and 
skilfully terrified by Mettemich's analysis of the unrest of 
Death the times, Alexander became more and more reactionary, 

and when he died, on December 1, 1825, he left an admin- 
istration dominated by a totally different spirit from that 
which had prevailed in the earlier years. The period from 
1820 to 1825 was one of reaction and repression through- 
out his dominions. 

THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I 

Alexander left no son to succeed him. His nearest heir 
was his brother Constantine, who, however, had secretly re- 
nounced the crown. Alexander had designated his younger 
brother, Nicholas, as his successor. The documents, how- 
ever, making this disposition had never been published. The 
result was confusion and uncertainty for some weeks. Nich- 
olas refused to mount the throne, and took the oath of 
allegiance to Constantine. Some days elapsed before Con- 
stantine renounced his rights publicly. The opportunity 
was seized by many malcontents and by the secret societies 
which had grown up under Alexander. They attempted to 
effect a revolution, whose precise aim was not clear. This 
was finally put down by bloodshed in the streets of St. Peters- 
burg. Punishment was meted out to the ringleaders with 
great severity. Several were banged, others were banished to 



ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS I 651 

the Ural mines or to Siberia, This revolt of December 
(1825) only strengthened the hold of absolutism upon 
Russia by deepening the hostility of the new ruler to all 
liberalism, associated in his mind with disloyalty and 
anarchy. 

Nicholas I was in his thirtieth year at the time of his Nicholas I, 
accession. His reign covered a generation, 1825-1855, and 
was eventful. His training had not been in politics or 
administration, but in the army. His mind was practical, 
narrow, rigid, and exceedingly conservative. He sought to 
eradicate abuses wherever he discovered them, but in so 
vast and centralized yet ill-compacted an empire it was 
impossible for the Emperor to control effectively the details 
of the government. His policy was uncompromisingly ab- 
solutistic, both at home and abroad. He was the great 
bulwark of monarchical authority in Europe for thirty years. 
He carried out systematically and persistently that scheme Systematic 
of reaction into which Alexander had drifted during the repression, 
closing years of his reign. He sought to give an entirely 
Russian tone to every aspect of Russian life. His predeces- 
sors since Peter the Great had sought Russia's advancement 
in imitation of western Europe, in the introduction of 
western customs and ideals and institutions. Nicholas 
planted himself right athwart this traditional tendency. 
Russia must be self-sufficient ; must find within herself the 
fundamental, active principles of her life. 

For thirty years a system of remorseless, undeviating re- 
pression was steadily carried out. The two principal in- 
struments employed were the secret police and the censor- 
ship. The former, under the name of the Third Section, The 
possessed practically unlimited powers of life and death. Police 
coiild arrest, imprison, exile, or execute without let or 
hindrance. The censorship was elaborately and minutely The censor- 
organized, and was most effective in stamping out freedom ship, 
of the press and of speech, though making itself ridiculous 
by the senseless zeal with which it pursued its work. Musical 



652 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

notes were investigated on the ground that conspirators might 
be using them as ciphers for malevolent purposes. It was 
decreed that books on anatomy and physiology should contain 
nothing that could offend the sense of decency. Punishments 
were of great severity. The most harmless word might 
mean exile to Siberia, without any kind of preliminary trial. 
The rigor of this regime increased as the reign wore on. 
To rivet it still tighter, that vigilance should never sleep, 
a committee was appointed in 1848 to watch over the 
censors, and later another committee to watch over the first. 
It has been estimated that in the twenty years between 
1832 and 1852 probably 150,000 persons were exiled to 
Siberia, suffering fearful hardships on the way and after 
arrival, condemned, as they generally were, to work in the 
mines. In addition, tens of thousands languished in the 
prisons of Russia. 
Safeguards Needless to say, under such a system no such thing as 
th d f ^ ^^^^ press or a free reading public could possibly exist, 
western ^^ 1843 all the Russian journals combined did not have more 
Europe. than 12,000 subscribers. That Russians might not be con- 

taminated by the pernicious liberal ideas of the west, their 
travel abroad was greatly restricted by a system of passports. 
These passports were expensive, and were only granted on the 
consent of the sovereign, and then only for a maximum 
period of five years. Any one outstaying the time per- 
mitted might have his property in Russia confiscated. On 
the other hand, the travel in Russia of foreigners was 
elaborately discouraged. Such travelers must obtain pass- 
ports from the Russian government, must explain why they 
were visiting that country, and during their entire sojourn 
were under police surveillance. 

Foreign literature of a liberal nature Avas rigorously ex- 
cluded. While Nicholas I encouraged Russian literature in 
A brilliant ^^^ forms that seemed harmless, while his reign was called 
native the " Augustan age of Russia," rendered notable by the 

literature, poetry of Pushkin, the novels of Dostoievski, Turgenieff, and 



POLICY OF NICHOLAS I 653 

Gogol, while he encouraged research in lines which he con- 
sidered legitimate, and showed his huraanitarianism by abol- 
ishing capital punishment, except for high treason, at a 
time when the English penal code was barbarous in its 
severity, and while he encouraged the building of railways, 
so that at the time of his death there were 632 miles in 
operation, his reign was, on the whole, one of repression and 
national stagnation. As we have seen, Russia was as com- 
pletely as possible shut off from the outside world. No 
attempt was made even to connect the railways with the 
systems of western Europe. In later years, regarding edu- 
cational institutions as " hotbeds of revolution," he prac- 
tically limited the number of students at any Russian uni- 
versity, with the exception of those pursuing courses in 
medicine, to three hundred. The result was that in 1853, 
in a country whose population was about 70,000,000, there 
were only about 2,900 students. Religious persecution Religious 
accompanied political and intellectual. Any one renounc- persecution, 
ing the Orthodox religion was punished with loss of prop- 
erty and with eight to ten years of hard labor. Any one 
attempting to convert an Orthodox believer was imprisoned 
from eight to sixteen months, and, for the third offense, was 
exiled to Siberia. Nicholas, like his predecessor, was alive The evil of 
to the evils of serfdom, and during his reign six committees serfdom, 
were appointed to study the problem, but almost nothing 
was accomplished. " I do not understand," he once said, 
speaking as " the first nobleman in Russia," " how man came 
to be a thing, and I can explain the fact only by deception 
on one side and ignorance on the other. We must make 
an end to this. It is better we should give up, of our own 
account, that which might otherwise be wrested from us." 

Nicholas's foreign policy was marked by the same char- The 
acteristics, and made him hated throughout Europe as the foreign 
most brutal autocrat of Europe. Nicholas suppressed the ui„iioias I 
Polish insurrection of 1830-31, abolished the constitution 
granted by Alexander I, and incorporated Poland in Russia, 



654 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

thus ending the history of that kingdom, a history of only 
fifteen years. He waged two wars against Turkey, previ- 
ously described, one in 1828-9, and one in 1853-6. He 
interfered decisively to suppress the Hungarian revolution- 
ists in 1849, and in German affairs he was a factor of im- 
portance. His prestige was great after 1849. Russia, 
alone of the great powers, had passed through the turbulent 
years of 1848 and 1849 without commotion. She had aided 
in the restoration of the established order elsewhere. Her 
army, on which nearly forty per cent, of her income was 
annually expended, was supposed by Nicholas and by many 
The outside of Russia to be the best in Europe. The Crimean 

Crimean war, in which Nicholas became involved in 1854, proved the 
hollowness of this claim. That war was an overwhelming and 
disillusioning defeat for Russia. Sebastopol finally fell 
after a famous siege. Russia had lost more than 250,000 
lives, and had incurred an enormous expenditure. Another 
campaign and the Empire might dissolve into the elements 
from which it had been created. The prestige of Russia, 
so overwhelming since Napoleon's flight from Moscow, was 
completely shattered. The people had acquiesced in the 
narrow, iron regime of Nicholas, consoling themselves with 
the belief that their country was the greatest in Europe, 
that their army was invincible, that their sovereign was the 
most powerful monarch on the Continent. The falsity of all 
The this was now apparent. The Government was shown to be 

humiliation as incompetent and impotent as it was reactionary. The 
• military organization was clearly as honeycombed with 
abuses as the civil. Though the soldiers were brave, the 
generals were incapable, the officials corrupt, the commis- 
sary department a field of endless robbery. 

But in this great national humiliation lay the best hope 
of the future. As Prussia arose and reformed her institu- 
tions after Jena, so did Russia after the Crimean war. 
That war is a landmark in her history, as it inaugurated 
a period of extensive reorganization and improvement. 



THE SYSTEM OF LAND TENURE 655 

THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II 

Nicholas died in 1855, and was succeeded by his son, Alexander 

Alexander II, who ruled from 1855 to 1881. The new Em- °' 

1318-18S1 
peror was in his thirty-seventh year at the time of his accession. 

He had received a varied training, designed to equip him 

for rule. Of an open mind, and desirous of ameliorating the 

conditions of Russian life, he for some years followed a policy 

of reform. He relaxed the censorship of the press, and 

removed most of the restrictions which had been imposed 

upon the universities and upon travel. Particularly did 

he address himself to the question of serfdom. 

To understand the significance of the Edict of Emancipa- 
tion, which was to constitute Alexander II's most legitimate 
title to fame, one must first understand the previous system Prevailing 
of land tenure. Nearly all, practically nine-tenths, of the system 
arable land was owned by the crown and the royal princes, tgimj.g 
and by the one hundred and forty thousand families of the 
nobility. The land was, therefore, generally held in large 
estates. It was owned by a small minority; it was tilled 
by the millions of Russia, who were serfs. 

The method of cultivation was as follows : each estate 
was, as a rule, divided into two parts ; one part reserved 
by the owner for his own use, and cultivated directly under 
his supervision; the other assigned to his serfs. These 
serfs generally lived in small villages, going out into the 
fields to till them, returning to their villages at night. 
The village communities, or mirs, regulated for their members The mir. 
the cultivation of those lands especially allotted to them. 
The serfs did not own the land, but enjoyed the usufruct of 
it, were entitled to whatever they raised. In return the mir 
paid the landlord a fixed sum annually. About one-half of 
the mirs were on crown lands, one-half on lands belonging to 
the nobility. 

Serfdom, previously abolished in all other European coun- 
tries, still flourished in Russia, and was the basis of the 



656 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

The serfs, economic and social life. The serfs numbered about fifty 
millions, about 23,000,000 on the crown domains, about 23,- 
000,000 on the estates of the nobility, and over 3,000,000 
on the appanages of the imperial family and in private 
service as house domestics and attendants. The serfs cul- 
tivated, then, the lands allotted to the mir, and from what 
they raised they got their sustenance. But they also cul- 
tivated the portion set apart for the landlord's own use. 
They must labor for him three days a week. They were 
not slaves in the strict sense of the word. They could 
not be sold separately. But they were attached to the soil, 
could not leave it without the consent of the owner, and 
passed, if he sold his estate, to the new owner. The landlord 
had the right to inflict corporal punishment, which right, 
though legally restricted, was practically uncontrolled. If 
he considered any of his serfs unduly troublesome he could 
usually get the government to force them into the army, or 
send them to Siberia. In practice, the authority of the 
proprietor was unlimited. The peasant had the use, but not 
the ownership, of enough land to support himself and family ; 
but otherwise he was not his own master. 

Serfdom Serfdom was condemned on various grounds. It was 

morally harmful in that it offended the conscience of the 
age. Economically it had not proved successful. Two- 
thirds of the estates of private owners were mortgaged up 
to their full value, and while serfdom was not alone the 
cause of this, it was one of the causes. Yet the institution 
had influential support. The nobles looked upon their serfs 
as the chief source of their income. It was customary in 
speaking of a nobleman's wealth not to say that he pos- 
sessed so many acres, or had an income of so many rubles 
a year, but that he possessed so many hundreds of " souls." 
It is no occasion for surprise, therefore, that although the 
Emperor, Alexander II, attacked the question immediately 
after the close of the Crimean war, several years elapsed 
before it was solved. 



condemned. 



THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS 657 

The crown serfs were in a better position than the serfs The Crown 
on private estates. Practically, their only obligation was serfs, 
to pay certain dues each year to the State or the imperial 
family, which were considerably smaller than those paid by 
the others to their lords. They were, in a sense, tenants, 
owing the equivalent of rent. To free them, all that was 
necessary was to abolish these dues, and to recognize the 
serfs as owners of the holdings, which they had been culti- 
vating, and to grant them personal freedom. No one could 
question the right of the State to do what it would with 
its own. The liberation of these serfs was begun in 1859, 
though the process was not completed until 1866. Another 
class, those in domestic service, could easily be freed, but the 
class belonging to private landlords and attached to the soil 
presented greater difficulties, for it was not simply a question 
of giving them civil freedom, but it was a question of 
giving them land as well. The Edict of Emancipation The Edict 
concerned the serfs of private landowners, the nobles. Issued °^ Emanoi- 
March 3, 1861, it abolished serfdom throughout the Empire, ^ 
freeing about twenty-three million serfs, thus winning for 
Alexander the title of " the Tsar Liberator." This mani- 
festo did not merely declare the serfs free men. It under- 
took to solve the far more difficult problem of the ownership of 
the soil. The Tsar felt that merely to give the serfs free- 
dom, and to leave all the land in the possession of the 
nobles, would mean the creation of a great proletariat 
possessing no property, therefore likely to fall at once 
into a position of economic dependence upon the nobles, 
which would make the gift of freedom a mere mockery. 
Moreover, the peasants were firmly convinced that they were 
the rightful owners of the lands which they and their ances- The land 
tors for centuries had lived upon and cultivated, and the ^^° ^^' 
fact that the landlords were legally the owners did not alter 
their opinion. To give them freedom without land, leaving 
that with the nobles, who desired to retain it, would be 
bitterly resented as making their condition worse than ever. 



658 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



Division of 
tlie land. 



On the other hand, to give them the land with their freedom 
would mean the ruin of the nobility as a class, considered 
essential to the state. The consequence of this conflict of 
interests was a compromise, satisfactory to neither party, 
but more favorable to the nobility than to the peasants. 

The lands were divided into two parts. The landlords 
were to keep one ; the other was to go to the peasants in 
the following manner: the house and lot of each peasant 
was to become his personal property ; the lands surrounding 
the village were to become the property of the village, or 
mir, to be owned by the community collectively, but to 
be divided periodically among its members, according to the 
Russian fashion.' Such divisions were made by lot, and 
were merely temporary, for a period, varying in different dis- 
tricts, from three to twelve years, and varying also with 
the size of the family. Collective ownership of general 
farming land, private ownership of house and lot, were thus 
the modes of land tenure adopted at the Emancipation. But 
the lands, those going to the peasants individually, and those 
going to the mir collectively, were not given to them out- 
right. The peasant and the mir must pay the landlord 
for their respective acquisitions. As they could not do 
this themselves, the State Avas to advance the money, which 
was to be paid back in instalments during a period of 
forty-nine years. The principle was the same as that ap- 
plied later in the land purchase laws for Ireland. Thus 
in time the peasants would become individually and collect- 
ively the owners of a part of the soil, yet the former land- 
owner would be paid for what was taken from him.^ 

This arrangement was a great disappointment to the 
ment of the peasantry. Their newly acquired freedom seemed a doubtful 
peasantry. ^^^^^ -^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ method of dividing the land. In- 

* This arrangement applied only to those regions where communal 
ownership was customary, namely the north, east, and south of Russia, 
Where individual ownership was the rule, as in Little Russia and Poland, 
the land was apportioned directly to individuals. 

* Domestic serfs were given freedom, but not land. 



State aid. 



Disappoint- 



CONTINUANCE OF THE LAND QUESTION 659 

deed, the peasant could not see that he was profiting from 
the change. Personal liberty could not mean much, when 
the conditions of earning a livelihood became harder rather 
than lighter. The peasant ceased to be bound to the land- 
lord, but he was bound to the mir all the more closely, because 
the mir was bound to the State for at least forty-nine years 
by its obligation to pay the State for the communal lands. 
This meant, concretely, a heavy land tax on each peasant. 
Was anything gained in becoming a kind of serf to the 
State at the moment of ceasing to be the serf of a noble- 
man .f* The peasants regarded the land as their own. But 
the State guaranteed forever a part to the landlords, and 
announced that the peasants must pay for the part assigned 
to themselves. To the peasants this seemed sheer robbery. 
Moreover, as the division worked out, they found that they 
had less land for their own use than in the pre-emancipation 
days, and that they had to pay the landlords, through 
the State, more than the lands which they did receive were 
worth. Moreover, as they were not permitted to leave the mir 
and seek their fortunes elsewhere, even the personal liberty 
guaranteed by emancipation seemed hollow. Evidently this The land 
could be no final solution of the land question for a country •l^^stion 
almost entirely agricultural. The agrarian question, in- 
deed, became steadily more and more acute during the next 
fifty years, and constitutes to-day one of the most difficult 
problems in the revolution now in progress. The peasant 
population has in that time vastly increased, and the 
pressure upon the land has consequently grown greater. At 
present the peasant has only on an average half as much land 
as he had in 1861. He lives necessarily upon the verge 
of starvation. 

The emancipation of the serfs is seen, therefore, not to 
have been an unalloyed boon. Yet Russia gained morally 
in the esteem of other nations by abolishing an indefensible 
wrong. Theoretically, at least, every man was free. More- 
over, the peasants, though faring ill, yet fared better than 



660 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



Establish- 
ment of 
zemstvos. 



Duties 
of the 
zemstvos. 



Unch ac- 
complished 
by the 
zemstvos. 



had the peasants of Prussia and Austria at the time of their 
liberation.^ 

The abolition of serfdom was the greatest act of Alex- 
ander II's reign, but it was only one of several liberal measures 
enacted at this time of general enthusiasm. In 1864 the 
Emperor issued a decree establishing a certain measure of 
self-government. This decree was based upon investigations 
made by a commission appointed in 1859. Russia is divided 
into provinces and the provinces are subdivided into districts. 
In each district a popular assembly was now established, 
called the zemstvo, to be chosen by the landowners, the 
bourgeois, and the peasants in the villages. The district 
zemstvos were to choose representatives, who were to form 
provincial zemstvos. The zemstvos were to meet regularly 
once a year, and were to aid the Government in administra- 
tion. They were not to be political bodies. It was not 
the intention of the Emperor to divide or reduce in any 
degree his autocratic power. They were to serve as a 
part of the local administration, discharging certain func- 
tions which the smaller areas, the mirs, could not adequately 
perform, such as the control of the public highways, primary 
schools and hospitals, and the taking of precautions against 
famine ; in short, to contribute within strict limits to the 
material and moral well-being of the people. These zemstvos 
were introduced gradually during the next twelve years, from 
1864< to 1876. " The zemstvo," says a leading authority, 
" has done a great deal to provide medical aid and 
primary education for the common people, and it has im- 
proved wonderfully the condition of the hospitals, lunatic 
asylums, and other benevolent institutions committed to its 
charge. In its efforts to aid the peasantry it has helped 
to improve the native breeds of horses and cattle, and it 
has created a system of obligatory fire insurance, together 



* On the attitude of the nobility and peasantry toward the Emancipa- 
tion see Wallace, Russia (Revised Edition 1905), 442-451, On general 
discussion of effects see Wallace, 452-490. 



REFORM OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 661 

with means for preventing and extinguishing fires in the 
villages, a most important matter in a country where the 
peasants live in wooden houses, and big fires are fearfully 
frequent." ' 

Though not intended as political or legislative bodies, 
but simply as aids to the State in business matters, the 
zemstvos have, nevertheless, been training schools in political 
co-operation. Though their activity has been interrupted, 
restricted, nullified, more or less by the central government, 
yet they have persisted, have struck root in the life of the 
nation, and have contributed to the political education of 
the people. 

This reform in administration was followed by one in the Reform 
judicial system (November 1864), based upon a study of °^ *^® 
the systems of Europe and the United States. The judicial ^^^^^^ 
organization was both corrupt and inefficient. Judges were 
poorly paid, and might be removed at any moment; trials 
were conducted behind closed doors and in writing, a method 
which greatly facilitated bribery, a system favorable to the 
rich, oppressive to the poor. Henceforth, it was provided, 
that judges should serve during good behavior, that court 
proceedings should be public and oral, and that trial by jury 
should be instituted for criminal cases. Whatever its short- 
comings, the new system was a great improvement on the old. 

Other lesser reforms were also carried through at this 
time. The censorship of the press was somewhat relaxed, 
the universities were released from certain restrictions im- 
posed during the reign of Nicholas I, and secondary educa- Educatioaal 
tion was improved. Schools emphasizing scientific education reform, 
were founded. In 1858 the first high school for girls was 
opened, and in the course of six years nearly a hundred others 
were established. 

This hopeful era of reform was, however, soon over, and End of tlie 
a period of reaction began, which characterized the latter ^^ °^ 
half of Alexander's reign and ended in his assassination in 

^Wallace, Russia, 500-501. 



662 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

1881. There were several causes for this change: the vacil- 
lating character of the monarch himself, taking fright at his 
own work; the disappointment felt by many who had ex- 
pected a millennium, but who found it not ; the intense dislike 
of the privileged and conservative classes of the measures just 
described, a dislike which could express itself in acts, inas- 
much as the Tsar confided the execution of his measures 
mainly to them. As a matter of fact these measures were, 
in application, distorted and even partially nullified. The 
reformers, hitherto a solid body, now split up into groups. 
Public opinion, the motive force behind all these changes, 
divided and became less certain. The landlords, smarting 
under the loss of their serfs, the serfs disappointed at the loss 
of some of the land which they had been accustomed to culti- 
vate, and indignant at having to pay for the land which they 
had acquired, were elements of disaffection. 
The Polish Just at this time, when the attitude of the Emperor was 
insurrection changing, when public opinion was in this fluid, uncertain 
of 1863. state, occurred an event which immensely strengthened the 
reactionary forces, a new insurrection of Poland. After 
the failure of their attempt to achieve independence in 1831 
the Poles had remained quiet, the quiet of despair. As 
long as Nicholas I lived they were ruled with the greatest 
severity, and they could not but see the impracticability of 
any attempt to throw off their chains. But the accession 
of Alexander II aroused hopes of better conditions. The 
spirit of nationalism revived, greatly encouraged by the 
success of the same spirit elsewhere. The Italians had 
just realized their aspiration, the creation of an Italian 
nation — not solely by their own efforts, but by the aid of 
foreign nations. Might not the Poles hope for as much? 
Alexander would not for a moment entertain the favorite 
idea of the Poles, that they should be independent. He 
emphatically told them that such a notion was an idle 
dream, that they " must abandon all thoughts of independ- 
ence, now and forever impossible." He would continue his 



INSURRECTION OF POLAND 663 

father's policy, as all that he had done had been " rightly 
done." In practice for several years, Alexander's policy 
was one calculated to agitate and arouse, without satisfying, 
the Poles. Concessions of a liberal nature were made them, 
only to be followed by acts regarded as oppressive or 
hostile. The result was that the irritation of the Poles in- 
creased, that misunderstandings multiplied, and that finally, 
in 1863, an insurrection broke out. It was in no sense 
as formidable as that of 1831. The Poles had now no 
army, no native government, no treasury. They had been 
since 1832 completely incorporated in Russia. At no time 
during this insurrection did they control even their capital, •: 

Warsaw, which remained in the power of the regular Rus- 
sian officials and army. The fighting was entirely guerrilla 
in character. The aim of the Poles was to ma\e Poland The aims of 
independent. This involved not only making the Poland *^® Poles, 
of that day a nation, but adding to it the Lithuanian prov- 
inces to the east, formerly a part of Poland, but for ninety 
years, since the first partition in 1772, incorporated in 
Russia proper. At once the intense national feeling of the 
Russians was aroused by what seemed to threaten dismem- 
berment of the Empire. Religious fanaticism was also 
aroused. The Poles were Roman Catholics, whereas the 
Russians belonged to the Orthodox Greek Church. Thus 
the Poles stood for schism in religion, as in politics. The 
Tsar, consequently, in his determination to crush this sepa- 
ratist spirit, had the support of tremendous national passions, 
and his campaign was conducted with vigor and without 
mercy. The only hope for the Poles lay in foreign in- The Poles 
tervention. In this they were bitterly disappointed. Eng- ^^^^^^^'^ ^° 
land, France, and Austria intervened three times in their 
behalf, but only by diplomatic notes, making no attempt 
to give emphasis to their notes by a show of force. Russia, 
seeing this, and supported by Prussia, treated their inter- 
vention as an impertinence, and proceeded to wreak her 
vengeance. It was a fearful punishment she meted out. 



664< RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



The deep- 
seated 
divisions 
of the 
Poles. 



Russia 
resolves to 
crush the 
Polish 
nobility. 



The deep-seated historic evil of Polish nationality was 
the division of the people into two classes, completely alien- 
ated from each other — the nobles and the peasants. Indeed, 
the Poles were practically two peoples. The fusion of 
the two had never been consummated. The nobles were 
the dominant class, and were regarded by the peasants as 
despots and oppressors. As a consequence, the Polish peo- 
ple did not act together as a whole. The insurrection of 
1863, like its predecessors, was the work of the nobles. The 
peasants remained inactive, unmoved by the appeals of those 
who turned to them only in adversity, but who treated them 
contemptuously and harshly in ordinary times. The Tsar 
determii ed to use this, the fundamental fact of Polish life, 
as a means of crushing the Polish nobility, the turbulent in- 
surrectioi ary class, by making the Polish peasants friendly to 
Russia. This he accomplished by a decree of March 1864, 
which effected a sweeping agrarian change. Practically 
half of the nobles' lands were given to the peasants as free- 
holds. The peasants were released from all obligation to 
cultivate the estates which remained the property of the 
nobles. At the same time no change was made in the peas- 
ants* former right to use the nobles' forest and pasture 
lands, a right very indefinite and yet real. This right 
was now preserved to them as tending to win their good 
will still more, and also as likely to keep friction alive 
between the nobles and the peasants, which in turn would 
cause the latter to look constantly to the Tsar for support 
and protection. The lands taken from the nobles were to 
be paid for, not by the peasants alone to whom they were 
transferred, but by a general land tax, which fell upon 
all lands, that is, upon the lands left to the nobles as 
well as those now given to the peasants. The result was 
that the nobles would have to pay a large part of their 
own compensation, an ingenious method of punishment. The 
process amounted to a confiscation of a part of their 
property. 



RESULTS OF THE POLISH INSURRECTION 665 

The clergy had supported the nobles in the insurrection. 
The Russian government punished them by suppressing most 
of the monasteries and confiscating their lands and by sub- 
jecting the priests to political supervision. 

A process of Russification was now vigorously pursued. A policy 
The Russian language was prescribed for the correspondence °^ ^^^* ®^"' 
of the officials and the lectures of the university professors, 
and the use of Polish was forbidden in churches, schools, 
theaters, newspapers, in business signs, in fact, everywhere. 

The consequences of the Polish insurrection of 1863 were 
felt in Russia as well. Those who desired a reversal of 
the Emperor's previous liberal policies and a return to the 
old methods and conditions were greatly encouraged and 
strengthened. Not that the Emperor at once abandoned 
his liberal policy. The great measures concerning the ad- Effect of 
ministrative and judicial systems, already described, were jj^g^jj-ggtij^j^ 
promulgated even after this. But Alexander II, always ^jpon Alex- 
vacillating, was troubled by these events. Reaction was ander II. 
hastened by two attempts to assassinate him, one in 1866, 
and the other in 1867. The Tsar, hitherto liberal, became 
reactionary. The execution of the reform measures de- 
scribed above was entrusted, as has been said, to those who 
were anxious to limit them, or completely to destroy them, 
and thus it came about that they were only partially applied, 
were robbed of some of their essential features. Universities 
again felt the weight of bureaucratic hostility. The achieve- 
ments of the reform era were rapidly being undone, and 
Russia was slipping back into the old familiar ways. This 
reaction aroused intense discontent and engendered a move- 
ment which threatened the very existence of the monarchy 
itself, namely. Nihilism. 

The more liberal-minded Russians had followed the re- Alexander's 
forming policy of the early years of Alexander's reign with f° ^^^ 
great enthusiasm, and after the issuance of the decree estab- trogressive. 
lishing the zemstvos they hoped that the Tsar would ad- 
vance further along the same path and would crown his 



666 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



ment. 



work with a constitution, and with real parliamentary in- 
stitutions for the whole Empire. Their optimism was doomed 
to speedy extinction. When the members of the zemstvos 
begged the Tsar to grant a representative constitution he 
rebuked them summarily for mixing in affairs not theirs. 
Shortly, the zemstvos were told that they were not political 
bodies, but merely business organizations, designed to attend 
to the economic interests of their districts. They were for- 
bidden to express political views. They were to be merely 
administrative organs, subject to the officials of the central 
government. 
Widespread The retrogressive policy of the later years of Alexander 
disillusion- H created a widespread and bitter sense of disappointment 
and deception, and resulted in the rise of an opposition to the 
existing form of government. This feeling has passed 
through several phases, but has constantly become stronger. 
The first phase was the most pessimistic. The Russians were 
thrown in upon themselves once more, there being no room 
in the Russian state for liberal action. Reading the works 
of the more radical philosophers and scientists of western 
Europe, and reflecting upon the foundations of their own 
national institutions and conditions, the " intellectuals," as 
these men were called, became most destructive critics, and 
were called Nihilists. 

" The fundamental principle of Nihilism," says Stepniak, 
" was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in the 
name of individual liberty, of all the obligations Imposed 
upon the individual by society, by family life, and by re- 
ligion." TurgeniefF defined a Nihilist as a " man who sub- 
mits to no authority, who accepts not a single principle upon 
faith merely, however high such a principle may stand in 
the eyes of men." The Nihilists were extreme individualists 
who tested every human institution and custom by reason. 
As few Russian institutions could meet such a test, the Nihil- 
ists condemned them all. Theirs was an attitude, first of in- 
tellectual challenge, then of revolt against the whole estab- 



Rise of 
Kihilism 



THE NIHILIST PROPAGANDA 667 

lished order. They did not properly form a party of action, Persecution 

but their reckless criticism of government, religion, marriage, ° . *,.®^ 

1 • • Nihilists, 
ethics brought down upon them the wrath of the authorities. 

Alarmed, they fled to other countries. The term Nihilist, 
as a term of opprobrium, has since been applied by the con- 
servatives to all shades and kinds of reformers, most in- 
accurately. 

Forced to live abroad, mainly in France and Switzer- 
land, the refugees came in contact with other advanced 
schools of thought. One of these was represented by 
Bakounine, a Siberian exile, who had escaped and was living Bakounine. 
in London. Bakounine was an anarchist who advocated 
the immediate destruction of all existing institutions, gov- 
ernments, churches, the family, private property, codes of 
law, in the interests of human freedom, " in order that," as 
he said later, " all these millions of poor human beings who 
are cheated, enslaved, overworked, and exploited . 
may henceforth and forever breathe in absolute freedom." 
Shortly, Socialism was grafted upon this hatred of all es- 
tablished institutions, this anarchy of Bakounine. In the 
place of the existing society, which must be swept away, a 
new society was to be erected, based on socialistic principles. 
Thus the movement entered upon a new phase. It ceased to 
be merely critical and destructive. It became constructive 
as well, in short, a political party with a positive programme, 
a party very small but resolute and reckless, willing to resort 
to any means to achieve its aims. 

This party now determined to institute an educational Nihilist 
campaign in Russia, realizing that nothing could be done P^opagan a, 
unless the millions of peasants were shaken out of their 
stolid acquiescence in the prevalent order which weighed so 
heavily upon them. This extraordinary movement, called 
" going in among the people," became very active after 
1870. Young men and women, all belonging to the educated 
class, and frequently to noble families, became day laborers 
and peasants in order to mingle with the people, to arouse 



668 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

them to action, " to found," as one of their documents said, 
" on the ruins of the present social organization the empire 
of the working classes." They showed the self-sacrifice, the 
heroism of the missionary laboring under the most discourag- 
ing conditions. A typical case was that of Sophie Sardine, 
arrested for discussing a socialist pamphlet before a group 
of workmen. She had for several months been employed in a 
spinning factory, working fifteen hours a day, and sharing 
all the hardships of the other women — all this that she might 
get the chance to preach to them the new ideas. Our aim, 
she explained later in court, " was to arouse in the conscience 
of the people the ideal of a better organization, one more con- 
formable to justice; to point out the vices of the present 
organization in order to prevent the return of the same 
errors." It is estimated that, between 1872 and 1878, be- 
tween two and three thousand such missionaries were active 
in this propaganda. Their eff*orts, however, were not re- 
warded with success. The peasantry remained stoHd, if not 
contented. Moreover, this campaign of education and per- 
suasion was broken up wherever possible by the ubiquitous 
and lawless police. Many were imprisoned or exiled to 
Siberia. 
A policy of A pacific propaganda being impossible, one of violence 
terrorism, seemed to the more energetic spirits the only alternative. 
As the Government held the people in a subjection unworthy 
of human beings, as it employed all its engines of power 
against every one who demanded reform of any kind, as, in 
short, it ruled by terror, these reformers resolved to fight it 
with terror as the only method possible. The " Terrorists " 
were not bloodthirsty or cruel by nature. They simply 
believed that no progress whatever could be made in raising 
Russia from her misery except by getting rid of the more 
unscrupulous officials. They perfected their organization 
and entered upon a period of violence. Numerous attempts, 
often successful, were made to assassinate the high officials, 
chiefs of police and others who had rendered themselves 



ATTACKS UPON THE TSAR 669 

particularly odious. In turn many of the revolutionists 
were executed. 

All this redoubled the activity of the authorities, par- Activity of 
ticularly of the dreaded Third Section of the police. In *^® police, 
the course of a single winter, 1878-9, it is said that nearly 
2,000 arrests were made in St. Petersburg alone. Suspected 
persons were not allowed witnesses, and were often summarily 
executed. Thousands were arrested and sent to Siberia 
without trial, by simple administrative decrees. Finally the Attempts 
terrorists determined to kill the Tsar as the only way of "o^pon the 
overthrowing the whole hated arbitrary and oppressive sys- ... 
tem. Several attempts were made. In April 1879 a school- 
master, Solovief, fired five shots at the Emperor, none of 
which took effect. In December of the same year a train 
on which he was supposed to be returning from the Crimea 
was wrecked, just as it reached Moscow, by a mine placed 
between the rails. Alexander escaped only because he had 
reached the capital secretly on an earlier train. The next 
attempt (February 1880) was to kill him while at dinner 
in the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. Dynamite was ex- 
ploded, ten soldiers were killed and fifty-three wounded in 
the guardroom directly overhead, and the floor of the dining 
room was torn up. The Tsar narrowly escaped because he 
did not go to dinner at the usual hour. 

St. Petersburg was by this time thoroughly terrorized. Alexander 
Alexander now appointed Loris MelikofF practically die- ^ ^^^ 
tator. Meliboff sought to Inaugurate a milder regime. He °V.! ^ 
released hundreds of prisoners, and in many cases commuted 
the death sentence. He urged the Tsar to grant the people 
some share in the government, believing that this would kill 
the Nihilist movement, which was a violent expression of 
the discontent of the nation with the abuses of an arbitrary 
and lawless system of government. He urged that this could 
be done without weakening the principle of autocracy, and 
that thus Alexander would win back the popularity he had 
enjoyed during his early reforming years. After much lies- 



670 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

itation and mental perturbation the Tsar ordered, March 13, 

1881, MelikofF's scheme to be published in the official journal. 

Assassina- But on that same afternoon, as he was returning from a 

tion of Alex- jj-iyg escorted by Cossacks, a bomb was thrown at his 
ander II. . mi • 

carriage. Ihe carnage was wrecked, and many of his escorts 

were injured. Alexander escaped as by a miracle, but a 

second bomb exploded near him as he was going to aid 

the injured. He was horribly mangled, and died within an 

hour. Thus perished the Tsar Liberator. At the same time 

the hopes of the liberals perished also. This act of supreme 

violence did not intimidate the successor to the throne, 

Alexander III, whose entire reign was one of stern 

repression. 



Alexander 

III, 

1845-1894. 



Rigorous 
policy of 
reaction. 



Influence 
Pobyedo- 
nostseff. 



of 



THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 

The man who now ascended the throne of Russia was in 
the full flush of magnificent manhood. Alexander III, son 
of Alexander II, was thirty-six years of age, and of power- 
ful physique. His education had been chiefly military. He 
was a man of firm and resolute rather than large or active 
mind. He was profoundly religious, and had a deep sense 
of his responsibility. 

It shortly became clear that he possessed a strong, inflex- 
ible character, that he was a thorough believer in absolutism, 
and was determined to maintain it undiminished. His most 
influential adviser was his former tutor, PobyedonostsefF, later 
for many years Procurator of the Holy Synod, a man 
who abhorred the liberal ideas of western Europe, and who 
insisted that Russia must preserve her own native institutions 
untainted, must follow without deviation her own historic 
tendency, which he conceived in a strictly nationalistic sense. 
The orthodoxy of the Greek Church, the absolutism of the 
monarch, were the fundamental tenets of his belief, — ^no 
coquetting with western ideas of representative government 
and religious and intellectual freedom. The opinions of this 
man are historically important because he was the power 



ABSOLUTISM OF ALEXANDER III 671 

behind the throne during all of Alexander Ill's reign, and 
during the first ten years of his successor's, the present Em- 
peror's. Of those opinions two, significant and characteris- 
tic, may be quoted, the one concerning parliamentary insti- 
tutions, the other concerning the press, supposed, in western 
Europe, to be two of the most powerful agencies of progress, 
" Parliament is an institution serving for the satisfaction 
of personal ambition, vanity, and self-interest of the members. Opposition 
The institution of Parliament is, indeed, one of the greatest *» *^e ^^^^^ 
illustrations of human delusion. ... On the pediment j.^yQ_g 
of this edifice is inscribed, ' All for the pubHc good.' This 
is no more than a lying formula; Parliamentarism is the 
triumph of egoism — its highest expression." " From the 
day that man first fell, falsehood has ruled the world, ruled 
it in human speech, in the practical business of life, in all its 
relations and institutions. But never did the Father of Lies 
spin such webs of falsehood of every kind as in this restless 
age. . . . The press is one of the falsest institutions 
of our time." ^ 

Under the influence of such an adviser, and under the 
sway of his own instincts and his indignation at the insolent 
demand of the Nihilists that the murderers of his father 
be not punished as they were merely " executors of a hard 
civic duty " ; influenced, too, no doubt, by the general horror 
which that event inspired, and the warm evidences of loyalty 
which it called forth, Alexander assumed an attitude of 
defiant hostility to innovators and liberals. His reign, which 
lasted from 1881 to 1894, was one of reversion to the older 
ideals of government and of unqualified absolutism. 

The terrorists were hunted down, and their attempts prac- The 
tically ceased. The press was thoroughly gagged, university errorists 
professors and students were watched, suspended, exiled, ^qwh. 
as the case might be. The reforms of Alexander II were 
in part undone, the zemstvos particularly being more and 
more restricted, and the secret police, the terrible Third Sec- 

* Pobyedonostseflf, Reflections of a Russian Statesman, 35, 62. 



672 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

tion, being greatly augmented. Liberals gave up all hope 
of any improvement during this reign, and waited for better 
days. 

Many of the subjects of the Emperor felt the hand of 
Persecution the oppressor with excessive severity. Under him began 

^ ^ the persecutions of the Jews, which have been so dark a 
Jews. 

feature of recent Russian history. The chief home of the 
Jews in the modern world is Russia. Out of about eight and 
a half million Jews in Europe, over five million live in 
that country. The Russian Jews had long been restricted to 
Poland and to the contiguous provinces of Lithuania, called 
the Jewish Territory, formerly a part of Poland. The Tsar, 
bigoted, and beheving in a policy of Russification of all 
the varied elements and races of the Empire, looked 
with disfavor upon a people which held fast its own re- 
ligion and spoke its own language and maintained its own 
customs. Under Alexander II the restrictions upon Jewish 
residence had not been rigorously enforced, and many were 
living outside the Jewish Territory. These were now ordered 
back, although suffering and hardship were the inevitable 
result. Anti-Jewish riots broke out in many places, costing 
many lives. The Government gave but slight protection; 
indeed, in many cases the officials appeared to encourage 
the outbreaks, so popular was Jew-baiting. To keep them 
out of the liberal professions decrees were issued limiting 
the number of Jews who might attend the secondary schools 
«f and universities — to from three to ten per cent, of the 

total enrollment according to the region, even though in 
some of these districts they formed a third or a half of 
Great ^^^ population. Utterly miserable and insecure, tens of 

Jewish thousands left the country. The great Jewish emigration 

emigration, to the United States dates from this time. 

Elsewhere, too, in the Baltic provinces, where the dominant 
element was of German origin, and in Finland, and particu- 
larly in Poland, the policy of Russification was vigorously 
applied. Alexander was offended by the sight within his 



PROGRESS UNDER ALEXANDER ni 673 

Empire of religions, races, and languages not his own, and he 
steadily endeavored to suppress the variations. Thus by 
the close of his reign the attempt to force alien peoples to 
become thoroughly Russian was in process of execution. It 
was both political and religious. Apparently meeting with 
a large measure of success, its permanence or profundity 
was not clear. Widespread, intense, though silent, dis- 
affection was aroused, which would surely express itself 
if the Government should ever find itself in difficulties. 
This policy sowed abundant seeds of trouble for the 
future. 

While the policy of Alexander III was thus opposed to Progressive 

the intellectual and moral forces of liberaKsm, and while *®^"'^^^* ® 

the reign 
it was harshly oppressive to the religious dissenters and ^^ ^.lex- 

subject nationalities of alien race, in other directions it was ander III. 
progressive. The Tsar was sincerely interested in the 
material advancement of his people, and won the title of 
the Peasants' Emperor. He abolished the poll tax, which 
has been called " the last relic of serfdom " (January 1884). 
He partially canceled the dues still owed by the peasants 
in compensation for lands acquired at the time of the emanci- 
pation. He sought to encourage the peasants to emigrate 
from congested districts to more sparsely populated regions, 
for the question of subsistence was then, as it still is, a 
serious problem in Russia. The lands allotted the peasants 
at the time of their liberation were inadequate then, and 
have become more inadequate since, owing to the rapid 
growth of the population. In 1815 the population was 
about forty-five million, in 1867 over eighty-two, in 1885 over 
one hundred and eight millions. This growth has been re- 
markable. In a land with endless agricultural stretches, 
widespread and terrible famines have frequently occurred. 

The most important feature of Alexander's reign was the The 

industrial revolution which began then, and has been carried iii<i^stnal 

revolution, 
much further under his successor. Russia had been for cen- 
turies an agricultural country whose agriculture, moreover, 



674. RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



Sergius de 
Witte, 
Minister of 
Finance. 



Witte's 

industrial 

policy. 



was of the primitive type. Whatever industries existed were 
mainly of the household kind. Russia was one of the poorest 
countries in the world, her immense resources being undevel- 
oped. Under the system of protection adopted by Alexander 
II, and continued and increased by Alexander III, industries 
of a modern kind began to grow up. A tremendous impetus 
was given to this development by the appointment in 1892 
as Minister of Finance and Commerce of Sergius de Witte, 
one of the most salient personalities in recent Russian his- 
tory. Witte believed that Russia, the largest and most 
populous country in Europe, a world in itself, ought to be 
self-sufficient, that as long as it remained chiefly agricultural 
it would be tributary to the industrial nations for manufac- 
tured articles, that it had abundant resources, in raw material 
and in labor, to enable it to supply its own needs if they 
were but developed, that a diversified industrial life would 
have the further advantage that it would draw laborers from 
the soil already overtaxed, and would thus render the agra- 
rian problem less acute. To effect this economic transforma- 
tion, believing thoroughly in a protective tariff, he advised 
that duties be raised and applied on a wider scale. But 
that the process of building up the nation's industries might 
be rapid, it was essential that a large amount of capital 
should be invested at once in the various industries, and this 
capital Russia did not possess. One of the cardinal features 
of Witte's policy was to induce foreign capitalists to invest 
in Russian factories and mines. He was eminently success- 
ful in bringing this about by showing them that they would 
have the Russian market by reason of the protective system, 
and by promising, in many cases, large orders from the 
Government for their products. Immense amounts of for- 
eign capital poured in, and Russia advanced industrially in 
the closing decade of the nineteenth century with great swift- 
ness. But that these industries might flourish, the markets 
must be rendered more accessible so that customers could 
be reached. Russia's greatest lack was good means of 



ECONOMIC EVOLUTION OF RUSSIA 615 

communication. She now undertook to supply this want Extensive 
by extensive railway building. For some years before M. de railway 

con stni fl» 

Witte assumed office, Russia was building less than 400 miles .. 
of railway a year; from that time on for the rest of the 
decade, she built nearly 1,400 miles a year. The most stu- 
pendous of these undertakings was that of a trunk line 
connecting Europe with the Pacific Ocean, the great Trans- 
Siberian railroad. For this Russia borrowed vast sums of 
money in western Europe, principally in France. Begun in 
1891, the road was formally opened in 1902. It has re- 
duced the time and cost of transportation to the East about 
one-half. In 1909 Russia possessed over 41,000 miles of 
railway, over 28,000 of which were owned and operated by 
the Government. 

This tremendous change in the economic life of the Empire Rise of 
was destined to have momentous consequences, some of which ^^^°^ 
were quickly apparent. With the introduction of modern 
industry on a large scale came the rise of a large laboring 
class and of labor problems of the kind with which western 
Europe had long been familiar. An industrial proletariat 
has sprung up in Russia as elsewhere, a new source of dis- 
content. Cities have grown rapidly, owing to the large 
number of workmen pouring into them. Two of these, Mos- 
cow and St. Petersburg, have over a million each. In the 
large factory towns the revolutionists have a new field of 
activity which can be more easily worked than the country 
districts. Here socialistic theories have spread rapidly as 
among the working people of the other countries of Europe. 

All this, too, has created a considerable body of rich Rise of a 
" industrials " of the middle class, of capitalists, in short, a "^'^ 
bourgeoisie which would not permanently be content with 
entire exclusion from political power or with obsolete, nar- 
row, illiberal forms of government. Thus the political con- 
dition of to-day has been rendered more complex by the 
addition of two new elements to the army of discontent. 
Looked at in this light, the reign of Alexander III is seen 



676 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

to be, not stagnant, but highly formative. Alexander was 

undermining his most cherished political principle by the new 

forces which he was liberating, and which in time were bound 

to spring the old iron framework of Russian life asunder. 

This fact partly explains the great unpopularity of Witte 

The system among the traditional ruling classes of Russia. A system 

of privilege resting on privilege and tradition cannot safely innovate 
meuEced. ... ... 1*1 

even in the direction of extracting oil and iron from the soil, 

and spinning cotton and weaving wool. That the old system 
was being undermined was not, however, apparent, and might 
not have been for many years had not Russia, ten years after 
Alexander's death, become involved in a disastrous and humil- 
iating war with Japan. 

THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II 

Accession of Alexander III died in 1894, and was succeeded by his 
Nicholas II. son, Nicholas II, then twenty-six years of age. The hope 
was general that a milder regime might now be introduced. 
This, however, was not to be. No change of importance 
was made in the Emperor's councilors. Pobyedonostseff, the 
very incarnation of narrow-minded, stiff-necked despotism, 
remained the power behind the throne. For ten years the 
young Tsar pursued the policy of his father with scarcely 
a variation save in the direction of greater severity. Nich- 
olas early announced his intention to " protect the principle 
of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as did my late and 
never-to-be-forgotten father." A suggestion of one of the 
zemstvos that representative institutions might be granted 
was declared " a senseless dream," and the zemstvo was 

^ ^. severely reprimanded. The government of Russia grew more 

Continuance . . 

of auto- oppressive, rather than less, as the century wore to its 

cratic gov- close. It was not a government of law but one of arbitrary 

ernment. power. Its main instruments were a numerous and corrupt 

bureaucracy or body of state officials who were not, in the 

slightest degree, responsible to the people, and a ruthless. 



CONDITION OF THE PEASANTRY 677 

active police. This being the system, an eminent Russian 
scholar, Professor VinogradofF, could say in England in 
1902, " Nobod}' is secure against search, arrest, imprison- 
ment and relegation to the remote parts of the Empire. 
From political supervision the solicitude of the authorities 
has spread to interferences with all kinds of private affairs. 
Such is the legal protection we are now enjoying 
in Russia." And again, " Such a government is not a 
fitting patron of law and justice. What it enforces is 
obedience to order, not to law, and its contempt of law is 
exemplified in every way." ^ Under such a system, men 
could be terrorized into silence, they could not be made 
contented. Disaffection, driven into subterranean channels, 
only increased, biding its time for explosion. The immense Increasing 
additions to the public debt and expenditure, occasioned disaffection, 
by the extensive railroad building and the support of army 
and navy, involved heavier taxation which fell mainly on 
the poor, the peasantry, reducing them to destitution and 
despair. Of this the same Russian authority said, speak- 
ing of the appalling conditions, " In most cases the number 
of cattle and horses owned by the peasantry is decreasing. 
In some districts of the province of Samara, which counts 
among the granaries of Russia, there have been years when 
one-third, and even one-half of the population have been 
turned into mendicants. When the tax gatherer turns away 
in despair from such wretched people he fastens the more Wretched 
on those who still have something left. It may be said condition 

without exaggeration that for the maiority of the Russian ** ®^ 

. .... peasantry, 

peasantry the primary object in life is to earn enough to 

pay the taxes, everything else is accident. The wonder is 
not at the lack of enterprise and thrift, but at the endurance 
which enables men to toil along in the face of such con- 
ditions." ^ The same witness quotes a Russian magistrate 
as saying that " there is no indignity which, in the beginning 

' Lectures on the History of the Nineteenth Century, edited by F. A, 
Kirkpatrick, 266-267. 
» Ibid., 259. 



678 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

of the twentieth century, may not be inflicted on a Russian 

peasant." 

Persecution The professional and educated man was in a condition 

of the " m- almost as intolerable. If a professor in a university, he was 
tellectuals." . . "^ 

watched by the police, and was likely to be removed at any 

moment as was Professor Milyoukov, an historian of dis- 
tinguished attainments, for no other reason than " generally 
noxious tendencies." If an editor, his position was even 
more precarious, unless he was utterly servile to the author- 
ities. It was a suffocating atmosphere for any man of the 
slightest intellectual independence, living in the ideas of the 
present age. The censorship grew more and more rigorous, 
and included such books as Green's History of England, and 
Bryce's American Commonwealth. Arbitrary arrests of all 
kinds increased from year to year as the difficulty of thor- 
oughly bottling up Russia increased. Students were the 
objects of special police care, as it was the young and ardent 
and educated who were most indignant at this senseless 
despotism. Many of them disappeared, in one year as many 
as a fifth of those in the University of Moscow, probably sent 
to Siberia or to prisons in Europe. 

A government of this kind was not likely to err from 
Attack upon excess of sympathy with the subject nationalities, such as 
the Finns, t^g Poles and the Finns. In Finland, indeed, its arbitrary 
course attained its climax. Finland had been acquired by 
Russia in 1809, but on liberal terms. It was not incor- 
porated in Russia, but continued a Grand Duchy, with the 
Emperor of Russia as simply Grand Duke. It had its own 
Parliament, its Fundamental Laws or constitution, to which 
the Grand Duke swore fidelity. These Fundamental Laws 
could not be altered or explained or repealed except with the 
consent of the Diet and the Grand Duke. Finland was a 
constitutional state, governing itself, connected with Russia 
in the person of its sovereign. It had its own army, its own 
currency and postal system. Under this liberal regime it 
prospered greatlj^, its population increasing from less than 



RUSSIAN POLICY TOWARD FINLAND 679 

a million to nearly three million by the close of the century, 

and was, according to an historian of Russia, at least thirty 

years in advance of that country in all the appliances of 

material civilization/ The sight of this country enjoying 

a constitution of its own and a separate organization was 

an offense to the men controlling Russia. They wished to 

sweep away all distinctions between the various parts of 

the Emperor's dominions, to unify, to Russify. The attack 

upon the liberties of the Finns began under Alexander III. 

It was carried much further by Nicholas II, who, on February 

15, 1899, issued an imperial manifesto which really abro- Abrogation 

gated the constitution of the country. The Finnish Diet °^ t^^ 

was henceforth to legislate only concerning matters relating ... .. 

*='■;; f o constitution. 

solely to Finland. All legislation of a general nature affect- 
ing the Empire as a whole was to be enacted in the ordinary 
way, that is, by the Tsar, who also said, " We have found 
it necessary to reserve to Ourselves the ultimate decision as 
to which laws come within the scope of the general legisla- 
tion of the Empire." This practically meant that Finland 
was henceforth to be ruled like Russia. The Finns so under- 
stood it. The following Sunday was observed as a day 
of mourning. An immense petition was drawn up, signed 
within five days by over half a million people. The Tsar 
refused to receive it. 

The process of enforced Russification was continued. 
The Finnish army was virtually incorporated in the Russian. 
Finnish soldiers, who had hitherto been required to serve 
only in the Grand Duchy, might now be sent to serve 
anywhere. Russian officials were appointed to positions in 
Finland previously filled only by Finns. Newspapers were 
suppressed or suspended. Finnish nationality was being in- 
tentionally crushed out. Intense was the indignation of the 
Finns, but three million people were powerless against j. 
the autocrat of one hundred and forty million. For the of the 
moment there were no signs of any possible relief. Grim Finns. 

^ Skrine, Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900, p. 322. 



680 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

despair seized the people. Their salvation was to come as 

a result of the disastrous defeat of Russia in the war with 

Japan in 1904-5, a landmark in contemporary history. 

Bise of the To understand recent events in Russia it is necessary to 

Far Eastern |.j,g^(,g ^j^g course of that war whose consequences have been 
Question. 

profound and far-reaching, and to show the significance 

of that conflict we must interrupt this narrative of Russian 

history in order to give an account of the recent evolution 

of Asia, the rise of the so-called Far Eastern Question, and 

the interaction of Occident and Orient upon each other. 



CHAPTER XXX 

THE FAR EAST 

ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA IN ASIA 

Europe has not only taken possession of Africa, but she England, 
has taken possession of large parts of Asia, and presses ^^^^l'®' ,^^* 
with increasing force upon the remainder. England and ^gja. 
France dominate southern Asia by their control, the former 
of India and Burma, the latter of a large part of Indo- 
China. Russia, on the other hand, dominates the north, 
from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. As far as 
geographical extent is concerned, she is far more an Asiatic 
power than a European, which, indeed, is also true of 
England and of France, and she has been an Asiatic power 
much longer than they, for as early as 1581 Cossacks from 
the Don had crossed the Urals and seized a town called Sibir. 
Pushing onward farther and farther east, and meeting no 
serious obstacles, the population being small, they conquered 
most of northern Asia before the Pilgrims came to America, 
and in 1633 they reached the Pacific. To this country, now 
Russian, they gave the name Siberia, applying the name of 
the first region conquered to the whole. In 1648 the town 
of Okhotsk was founded. Thus for nearly three centuries 
Russia has been a great Asiatic state, while England has been 
a power in India for only half that time. 

It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that Russian 
Russia began to devote serious attention to Asia as a field ^ 
for colonial and commercial expansion. Siberia was regarded 
merely as a convenient prison to which to send her disaffected 
or criminal citizens. Events in Europe have caused her to 
concentrate her attention more and more upon her Asiatic 
development. She has sought there what she had long been 
seeking in Europe, but without avail, because of the oppo- 

681 



682 THE FAR EAST 

sition she encountered, namely, contact with the ocean, free 
outlets to the world. Russia's coast line, either in Europe 
Russia or Asia, had no harbors free from ice the year round. She 

seeks access j^g^^j attempted to gain this contact at the expense of Turkey, 
sea. hoping to reach the Mediterranean, but she had not suc- 

ceeded. She made no progress in this direction in the nine- 
teenth century. Blocked decisively by the Crimean war, and 
seeing no chance in Europe, she turned to seek advantage in 
the East. Her coast line in eastern Siberia was very far 
north, with the result tliat its harbors were icebound more 
than half of the year. She sought to extend that line south- 
ward. In 1858 she acquired from China, then involved in a 
war with Great Britain and France, the whole northern bank 
of the Amur, and two years later she acquired from China 
more territory farther south, which became the Maritime 
Province, and at the southern point of this she founded as a 
naval base Vladivostok, which means the Dominator of the 
East. Here her development in eastern Asia stopped. 
Conquest of -^^ another direction, Russian advance has been notable. 
Turkestan. She has conquered Turkestan, a vast region east of the 
Caspian Sea, and this conquest has brought her close to 
India, and has given great importance to Afghanistan as a 
buffer between them. Turkestan had a population of about 
10,000,000, partly nomadic, partly settled in famous cities 
such as Samarkand, Bokhara, Tashkend. The nomads fre- 
quently made incursions into Siberia, and cut off the com- 
munications of Russia with her eastern possessions. To 
secure the safety of Siberia it was necessary to subdue them. 
The process was a long one (1845-1885), and at time exceed- 
ingly difficult, but was in the end entirely successful, and 
Russia annexed Turkestan, proceeding shortly to connect 
it with Europe by the Trans-Caspian railroad. 

CHINA 

China. Between Russian Asia on the north, and British and 

French Asia on the south, lies the oldest empire of the 



THE CIVILIZATION OF CHINA 683 

world, China, and one more extensive than Europe and 
probably more populous, with more than 400,000,000 inhab- 
itants/ It is a land of great navigable rivers, of vast 
agricultural areas, and of mines rich in coal and metals, 
as yet largely undeveloped. The Chinese were a highly The civiliza- 
civilized people long before the Europeans were. They pre- ^°^ ° 
ceded the latter by centuries in the use of the compass, 
powder, porcelain, paper. As early as the sixth century 
of our era they knew the art of printing from movable wooden 
blocks. They have long been famous for their work in 
bronze, in wood, in lacquer, for the marvels of their silk 
manufacture. As a people laborious and intelligent, they 
have always been devoted to the peaceful pursuits of in- 
dustry, and have despised the arts of war. Their greatest 
national hero is not a soldier but a philosopher and moralist, 
Confucius. Their really vital religion is ancestor worship, 
and they worship, not simply the souls of their ancestors, 
but their ideas and customs as well. Hence the most salient 
feature of their civilization, its immobility. For that civili- 
zation, so ancient, and in some respects so brilliant, lacked the 
very element that gives to European civilization its extraor- 
dinary interest, namely, its restlessness, its eagerness, its buoy- 
ancy, its daring, its constant struggle for improvement, its 
adaptability to the new, its forwardness of view, in short, its 
belief in progress. The one emphasized the past, the other 
the present and the future. The history of the former was 
one of endless repetition from generation to generation, and ■ 
from century to century ; the history of the latter was one of 
evolution. The reverence for ancestral ideas, for immemo- 
rial customs as the perfection of wisdom, rendered the Chinese 
hostile to all innovations in the realm of thought or in the 
realm of action. Foreigners they regarded as barbarians. 

' Mr. W. W. Rockhill, late minister of the United States at Peking, 
came to the conclusion in 1904, after careful inquiries, that the ofiBcial 
Chinese estimates have been for a hundred and fifty years greatly ex- 
aggerated and that the number of inhabitants does not much exceed 

270,000,000. 



684i 



THE FAR EAST 



ment of 
China. 



Isolation 
of China 



Their Kingdom they called the Middle Kingdom, i.e., the 
center of the world. They called themselves Celestials. 
The govern- Their Emperor was the " Son of Heaven." He was, in 
theory, an absolute monarch. He was represented in the 
eighteen provinces into which China was divided by Viceroys. 
The office-holding class, called by foreigners the mandarins^ 
was chosen from the educated by an elaborate and severe 
series of examinations in the literature and learning of China. 
The programme of studies in vogue until very recently was 
the same that had been in vogue for a thousand years. The 
reigning dynasty, the Manchu, had been on the throne since 
1644, when it succeeded in overthrowing the former or Ming 
dynasty. 

China, then, had always lived a life of isolation, despising 
the outside world. Something was known of it in Europe, 
yet remarkably little. Marco Polo in the thirteenth cen- 
tury brought home marvelous accounts which were one of 
the great inspirations of the age of geographical discovery. 
Explorers and, later, missionaries and merchants sought out 
the fabulous land. At times they even received some favors 
from the more enlightened Emperors. But, speaking broadly, 
the connection between Europe and China was of the slight- 
est down to the nineteenth century. Foreigners were per- 
mitted in the eighteenth century to trade in one Chinese 
port, Canton, but even there only under vexatious and humi- 
liating conditions. China had no diplomatic representatives 
in any foreign country, nor were any foreign ambassadors 
resident in Peking. China did not recognize any equality 
on the part of England, France, Spain, or any other country. 
" There is only one sun in the heavens, and there is only 
one Emperor on earth," was a Chinese saying. Inhabiting 
a country larger than Europe, with every variety of soil 
and climate, and with an old and elaborate civilization, it 
is not surprising that the Chinese were self-sufficient and 
indifferent to the outside world. They even forbade for- 
eigners learning the Chinese language. 



THE OPIUM WAR 685 

Obviously a policy of such isolation could not be perma- 
nently maintained in the modern age, and as the nine- 
teenth century progressed it was gradually shattered. This 
isolation began to be broken down by the outside world as 
a result of the so-called Opium War between China and The OpiTim 
Great Britain. Opium, a very harmful and dangerous drug, ^^^* 
is made from a certain kind of poppy that is grown in 
India. The Chinese government, anxious to preserve its 
people from the effects of the usage of this drug, forbade 
its importation in 1796. Yet the trade, though declared 
illegal, was carried on by smugglers with whom corrupt 
Chinese officials connived for the sake of gain. This illicit 
traffic flourished greatly. Four thousand chests were im- 
ported into China in 1796, thirty thousand in 1837. Each 
chest was supposed to be worth from six to twelve hundred 
dollars. The profits were enormous. The trade was a 
source of great income to British India, which did not wish 
to do without it. 

In 1837 the Chinese government proposed to stop this 
smuggling, and sent a Viceroy of great energy, Lin, to see 
that it was done. In this it was entirely within its rights. 
Lin seized about 20,000 chests of opium and destroyed them. 
Unfortunately, by his later arbitrary and arrogant proceed- 
ings, he put himself in the wrong. Out of this situation arose 
the Opium War, which began in 1840, and lasted about two 
years, ending in the victory of Great Britain. This was the 
first war between China and a European power. The conse- 
quences, in forcing the doors of China wider open to Euro- 
pean influence, were important. By the Treaty of Nanking, 
1842, she was forced to pay a large war indemnity, in part 
as compensation for the destroyed opium ; to open to British The treaty 
trade four ports in addition to Canton, namely, Amoy, P"'^*^* 
Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai, on the same conditions 
as those established for Canton ; and to cede the island of 
Hong Kong, near Canton, to England outright. Hong 
Kong has since become one of the most important naval and 



686 



THE FAR EAST 



Entrance of 
various 
powers into 



commercial stations of the British Empire. A step was 
taken also toward the recognition of the equality of Great 
Britain with China. It was provided that henceforth British 
officials should be treated as the equals of Chinese officials of 
similar rank. The question of the opium trade was left 
undecided. The Chinese refused to legalize it, declining, 
as they said, " to put a value upon riches and to slight men's 
lives." They were, however, afraid after their defeat to 
enforce their prohibition of it, and the smuggling began 
again and flourished more than ever. Owing to the fact that, 
practically, the Chinese were not permitted by a Christian 
nation to abolish an infamous traffic because it was a very 
lucrative one, and owing to the humiliation of their defeat, 
the relations with Great Britain continued unstable, and 
even led to another war. 

Other powers now proceeded to take advantage of the 
British success. The United States sent Caleb Cushing to 
commercial make a commercial treaty with China in 1844, and before 
relations. long France, Belgium, Holland, Prussia, and Portugal es- 
tablished trade centers at the five treaty ports. Some years 
later trouble arose in Canton between the English and the 
Chinese which led to a second war with China. England was 
joined by France this time, the reason for French intervention 
being the murder of a French missionary, an act for which 
no reparation could be secured. The allies resolved to 
Treaties of carry the war to the very neighborhood of Peking, the cap- 
Tientsin, ital. The Chinese Emperor, therefore, in 1858, agreed to the 
double Treaties of Tientsin. By the one with England, China 
agreed henceforth to receive a British ambassador, also to 
open more ports to commerce and to receive British consuls 
at the treaty ports. The treaty with France was of much 
the same nature, though differing in details. These treaties 
represented a great step forward in the recognition of the 
equality of European powers with China, and in furthering 
commercial intercourse. But, the Chinese not carrying them 
out, hostilities were renewed. The allies again marched upon 



EMERGENCE OF JAPAN 687 

Peking, burned the Emperor's beautiful summer palace just 
outside, and prepared to bombard the city. The result was 
that China confirmed the Treaties of Tientsin and agreed 
to pay additional war indemnities (1860). Thus she was 
brought into more direct connection with the outside 
world. 

Russia, which had taken no part in these proceedings, knew ^.ussia 
how to profit by them. It was at this time that she induced jj-oritime 
China to cede to her the Maritime Province, which extended Province, 
her Pacific coast line seven hundred miles further south, 
enabling her to found at its southern port Vladivostok, as 
has already been mentioned (1860). 

The period of greatest importance in China's relations 
with Europe came in the last decade of the nineteenth cen- 
tury as a result of a war with Japan in 1894-5. To appre- 
ciate this war it is first necessary to give some account of 
the previous evolution of Japan. 

JAPAN 

The rise of Japan as the most forceful state in the Orient Japan. 
is a chapter of very recent history, of absorbing interest, and 
of great significance to the present age. Accomplished in 
the last third of the nineteenth century, it has already pro- 
foundly altered the conditions of international politics, and 
seems likely to be a factor of increasing moment in the future 
evolution of the world. 

Japan is an archipelago consisting of several large islands Description 
and about four thousand smaller ones. It covers an area ° Japan, 
of 147,000 square miles,^ which is smaller than that of 
California. The main islands form a crescent, the northern 
point being opposite Siberia, the southern turning in toward 
Korea. Between it and Asia is the Sea of Japan. The 
country is very mountainous, its most famous peak, Fuji- 
yama rising to a height of 12,000 feet. Of volcanic origin, 
numerous craters are still active. Earthquakes are not un- 
*Exclusive of territories acquired since 1894. 



688 



THE FAR EAST 



Japanese 
civilization. 



The 
Mikado. 



The 
Shogun. 



common, and have determined the character of domestic 
architecture. The coast line is much indented, and there 
are many good harbors. The Japanese call their country 
Nippon, or the Land of the Rising Sun. Only about one- 
sixth of the land is under cultivation, owing to its mountain- 
ous character, and owing to the prevalent mode of farming. 
Yet into this small area is crowded a population of about 
fifty million, which is larger than that of Great Britain 
or France. It is no occasion for surprise that the Japanese 
have desired territorial expansion. 

The people of Japan derived the beginnings of their civili- 
ization from China, but in many respects they differed greatly 
from the Chinese. The virtues of the soldier were held 
in high esteem. Patriotism was a passion, and with it 
went the spirit of unquestioning self-sacrifice. " Thou shalt 
honor the gods and love thy country," was a command of 
the Shinto religion, and was universally obeyed. An art- 
loving and pleasure-loving people, they possessed active 
minds and a surprising power of assimilation which they were 
to show on a national and momentous scale. 

In the middle of the nineteenth century their state and 
society were thoroughly feudal, and presented many inter- 
esting points of similarity with forms long outlived in 
Europe. The Mikado or Emperor, reputed to be the de- 
scendant of the gods, was the head of the nation. But while 
he had formerly been a powerful personage he had for two 
centuries and more sunk into a purely passive state. He 
lived in complete seclusion in his palace in Kioto, took no 
part in the actual government, had become, in fact, a 
figurehead, invested with a kind of religious authority or 
halo, so that many foreigners thought that he was not the 
Emperor but a sacred ecclesiastical personage. The real 
authority was the Shogun. The comparison is often made 
between the Shogun and the Frankish mayor of the palace 
in Merovingian times. Reigning as a m.ere servant of the 
Mikado, he had known how to acquire from the latter more 



JAPAN A FEUDAL STATE 689 

and more power in the actual direction of affairs until 
he was practically the ruler. He had his own palace at 
Yedo, which was the real seat of government, and his power 
became hereditary, passing from the Shogun to his heir 
without disturbance. The Mikado was the nominal, the 
Shogun the real ruler. There were thus practically two 
dynasties. Beneath the Shogun was the military aristoc- The 
racy, the Daimios, owners of great estates, governors of Daimios, 
provinces, and beneath them their retainers, the Samurai, 
or class of warriors, completely armed in coats of mail, 
helmets, and cuirasses, not greatly dissimilar from those with 
which Europe had been familiar centuries before. These 
were the directing classes of the state. Beneath them were 
the masses of the people, of no importance politically, mer- 
chants, peasants, artisans. Such was the system that re- 
mained intact until the remarkable revolution which began in 
1868. That revolution was a direct result of the insistence of 
foreign nations that Japan should enter with them into the 
ordinary relations that exist among nations. 

For about two hundred years Japan had been almost 
hermetically sealed against the outside world. In the period 
of geographical discoveries of the fifteenth century, Zipangu 
had been one of the mysteries and allurements of the venture- 
some navigators. Europe had a vague knowledge of the 
existence of this island, which was placed on pre-Columbian 
maps somewhat east of the present United States. To clear 
up this obscurity, and to find a convenient route to the riches 
which were associated in men's minds with the East gener- 
ally, was one of the objects of the Spanish and Portuguese 
discoverers. One of the latter, Pinto, was the first to reach Advent of 
the famous land, in 1542. He was well received, as were 
for a time other visitors. In a few years missionaries came, 
among whom was Francis Xavier, the Jesuit. Later other 
missionaries appear to have had very considerable success. 
It is said that in 1581 there were two hundred churches and 
50,000 converts, and for some years before 1590 it is esti- 



690 



THE FAR EAST 



Japan 
adopts a 
policy of 
isolation. 



Commodore 

Perry. 



mated that there were 10,000 converts a year. But bitter 
persecutions of the Christians finally broke out, apparently 
occasioned by the pretensions and tactlessness of the bishops, 
and possibly by their political intriguing. A reaction 
naturally resulted. More than 20,000 converts were put to 
death in 1591, amid fearful tortures. The spirit of persecu- 
tion flamed up from time to time in the years following, cost- 
ing thousands of victims. The anti-foreign feeling grew so 
strong that in 1638 Japan adopted a policy of isolation, 
more rigorous than that of China. Foreigners were for- 
bidden to enter the country under pain of death, and the 
Japanese were forbidden to leave it. They were also for- 
bidden to buy foreign goods, and they might sell only those 
articles which the Government permitted, and then only to 
the Dutch, who were allowed a trading station on the small 
peninsula of Deshima. This was Japan's sole point of con- 
tact with the outside world for over two centuries. 

This unnatural seclusion was rudely disturbed by the 
arrival in Japanese waters of an American fleet under Com- 
modore Perry in 1853, sent out by the government of the 
United States. American sailors, engaged in the whale fish- 
eries in the Pacific, were now and then wrecked on the coasts 
of Japan, where they generally received cruel treatment. 
Perry was instructed to demand of the ruler of Japan pro- 
tection for American sailors and property thus wrecked, and 
permission for American ships to put into one or more Jap- 
anese ports, in order to obtain necessary supplies and to 
dispose of their cargoes. He presented these demands to the 
Shogun, supposing him to be the sovereign. He announced 
further that if his requests were refused, he would open hos- 
tilities. The Shogun granted certain immediate demands, 
but insisted that the general question of opening relations 
with a foreign state required careful consideration. Perry 
consented to allow this discussion and sailed away, stating 
that he would return the following year for the final answer. 
The discussion of the general question on the part of the 



OPENING OF JAPAN 691 

Shogun and the Daimios, or ruling military class, was very 
earnest. Some of the latter believed in maintaining the old 
policy of complete exclusion of foreigners. Others, however, 
including the Shogun, believed this impossible, owing to the 
manifest military superiority of the foreigners. They Policy of 
thought it well to enter into relations with them in order to isolation 
learn the secret of that superiority, and then to appropriate ^q^„ 
it for Japan. They believed this the only way to insure, in 
the long run, the independence and power of their country. 
This opinion finally prevailed, and when Perry reappeared 
the Shogun made a treaty with him (1854) by which two 
ports were opened to American ships. This was a mere be- 
ginning, but the important fact was that Japan had, after 
two centuries of seclusion, entered into relations with a for- 
eign state. Later other and more liberal treaties were con- 
cluded with the United States and with other countries. 

The reaction of these events upon the internal evolution 
of Japan was remarkable. They produced a very critical 
situation, and precipitated a civil war. The epoch-making Overthrow 

treaty had been made by the Shogun, and one of its results ° ^ ^ 

1 1 ,. 1 ? • Shogunate. 

was the speedy overthrow of the Shogunate and of the entire 

feudal system. The Mikado and his supporters resented 
the high-handed action of the Shogun, nominally a 
mere subordinate, who, in a matter of supreme importance, 
had not consulted the sovereign. All those members of the 
feudal nobility who opposed the admission of the foreigners 
sided with the Mikado in opposition to the Shogun. The 
Shogun and his supporters stood for the policy of entering 
into relations with the outside powers for the simple reason 
that the latter had the military force to enable them to 
impose their demands. The supporters of the Mikado were 
themselves now convinced of that superiority in a decisive 
manner. The popular hatred of foreigners resulted in out- 
rages, several of them by the Mikado's partisans. One of 
these was upon an Englishman, Richardson, murdered in 
1862. The English forthwith bombarded Kagoshima, the 



692 



THE FAR EAST 



The 
Kikado 
recovers 
power. 



Rapid trans- 
formation 
of Japan. 



stronghold of the anti- foreign Daimios (1863). This had 
the result of convincing these Daimios of the superiority of 
other nations to Japan, of the uselessness of combating them 
or trying to keep them out of Japan, of the desirability of 
adopting their civilization in order to make Japan equally 
powerful. Thus they completely reversed their position, 
and became friends of the new foreign policy, instead of its 
bitter opponents. Other Daimios hostile to the foreigners 
were taught a similar lesson at Shimonoseki (1864). The 
situation remained, however, confused and troubled. 

In 1866 the Shogun died, and 1867 the Mikado. The 
successor to the latter was Mutsuhito, the present Emperor, 
then fifteen years of age. A civil war shortly broke out 
between the representatives of the Mikado and the sup- 
porters of the Shogun. The latter were repeatedly de- 
feated. The Shogunate was abolished. Henceforth the 
Mikado was the real as well as the nominal head of the 
state. He abandoned the retirement in which his predeces- 
sors had lived so long, left Kioto in order to emphasize this 
fact, and established himself in Yedo, previously the Sho- 
gun's capital, to which was now given the name Tokio, the 
Capital of the East (1868). 

The collapse of the Shogunate, and the restoration of 
the Mikado to absolute power constituted the initial step 
of a remarkable and sweeping transformation of Japan, 
the beginning of a new era, which the Mikado himself called 
the era of " enlightened rule." Japan revolutionized her 
political and social institutions in a few years, adopted with 
ardor the material and scientific civilization of the West, 
made herself in these respects a European state, and entered 
as a result upon an international career, which has already 
profoundly modified the world, and is likely to be a constant 
and an increasing factor in the future development of the 
East. So complete, so rapid, so hearty an appropriation 
of an alien civilization, a civilization against which every 
precaution of exclusion had for centuries been taken, is a 



ADOPTION OF EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS 693 

change unique in the history of the world, and notable 
for the audacity and the intelligence displayed. The en- 
trance upon this course was a direct result of Perry's ex- 
pedition. The Japanese revolution will always remain an 
astounding story. Once begun with the abolition of the Sho- 
gunate, it proceeded with great rapidity. In 1871 the Abolition 
Daimios or nobles, most of whom had sided with the Mikado, °^ *^f 
voluntarily relinquished their feudal rights, and the feudal 
system, which had lasted for over eight hundred years, 
was entirely abolished. The old warrior class of Samurai, 
numbering about four hundred thousand, gave up their class 
privileges, and became ordinary citizens. All this cleared 
the way for a general adoption of European institutions. 
In place of the former military class arose an army based Adoption of 

on European models. Military service was declared uni- 'iropean 

1111- • mi /-. 1-1 institutions, 

versa! and obligatory m 1872. The German system, which 

has revolutionized Europe, began to revolutionize Asia. 
Soldiers enter upon military service at the age of twenty, 
serve three years in the active army, pass for four into the 
reserve, and are liable to be called out in any time of 
crisis until the age of forty. The army was thus made 
national. European officers were imported to train it. 
A navy was started, and dockyards and arsenals were 
constructed. 

The first railroad was begun in 1870 between Tokio and 
Yokohama. Thirty years later there were over 3,600 miles 
in operation. To-day there are 5,000. Steam navigation 
was begun, a telegraph system commenced in 1868, a postal 
system instituted, and in 1878 a Stock Exchange and a 
Chamber of Commerce were opened at Tokio. The educa- 
tional methods of the West were also introduced. A uni- Reform in 
versity was established at Tokio, and later another at Kioto, education. 
Processors from abroad were induced to accept important 
positions in them. Students showed great enthusiasm in pur- 
suing the new learning. Public schools were created rapidly, 
and by 1883 about 3,300,000 pupils were receiving educa- 



694. 



THE FAR EAST 



Japan 
becomes a 
constitu- 
tional 
state. 



tion. In 1884 the study of English was introduced into 
them. Compulsory military service and the system of educa- 
tion tended to fuse the people into a homogeneous whole, 
permeated with the same spirit of progress, optimism, and 
patriotism. Newspapers, first permitted in 1869, multiplied 
rapidly, until in 1882 there were over a hundred. Transla- 
tions of foreign books were published unceasingly. Vaccina- 
tion was introduced, and in 1873 the European calendar was 
adopted. The codes of law, civil and criminal, and the code 
of judicial procedure were thoroughly remodeled after an 
exhaustive study of European systems. The equality of all 
citizens before the law was proclaimed, and to crown this 
work of peaceful revolution a constitution was granted by 
the Mikado. The Mikado had promised this in 1881, and 
had declared that in 1890 Japan should have a parliament. 
He was true to his word. In 1881 a commission, at whose 
head was Count Ito, went to Europe to study the political 
systems in operation there. After its return the information 
gathered was carefully studied by a special body appointed 
for the purpose. This body drafted a constitution in which 
the influence of England, the United States, Germany, and 
other countries can easily be traced. Eight years were 
spent upon the elaboration of this document, which was pro- 
claimed in 1889. It established a parliament of two 
chambers, a House of Peers, and a House of Representatives. 
The vote for the latter body was given to men of twenty-five 
years of age who paid direct taxes to the state of about 
seven dollars and a half. This was reduced in 1900 to those 
paying about five dollars. The members of the popular 
house receive salaries. The constitution reserves very large 
powers for the monarch. Parliament met for the first time 
in 1890. 

Thus Japan, as soon as she recognized the superiority 
of foreign nations, reversed her long-established policy of 
seclusion, and, instead of lying helpless before them, studied 
them carefully, adopted all of the machinery of their civiliza- 



CHINO-JAPANESE WAR 695 

tion, political, military, industrial, intellectual, that seemed 
to promise advantage, and in a few years emerged completely 
revolutionized and immensely strengthened. Not that such 
far-reaching reforms occasioned no dissatisfaction, for they 
did — and even a rebellion — which was easily put down. The 
test of rejuvenated Japan came in the last decade of the nine- 
teenth century and the first of the twentieth, and proved the 
solidity of this amazing achievement. During those years Wars with 
she fought and defeated two powers apparently much China and 
stronger than herself, China and Russia, and took her place 
as an equal in the family of nations. 

CHINO-JAPANESE WAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 

A war in which the efficiency of the transformed Japan Cause of the 
was clearly established broke out with China in 1894. The ^^r with 
immediate cause was the relations of the two powers to 
Korea, a peninsula lying between China and Japan, about 
sis hundred miles long, with an area one-fifth less than 
that of Great Britain, and a population of ten or twelve 
million. This territory was a kingdom, but both China 
and Japan claimed suzerainty over it. Japan had an in- 
terest in extending her claims, as she desired larger markets 
for her products. Friction was frequent between the two 
countries concerning their rights in Korea, as a consequence 
of which Japan began a war in which, with her modern army, 
she was easily victorious over her giant neighbor, whose 
armies fought in the old Asiatic style with a traditional 
Asiatic equipment. The Japanese drove the Chinese out 
of Korea, defeated their navy in the battle of the Yalu, 
invaded Manchuria, where they seized the fortress of Port 
Arthur, the strongest position in eastern Asia, occu- 
pied the Liao-tung peninsula on which that fortress is 
located, and prepared to advance toward Peking. The 
Chinese, alarmed for their capital, agreed to make peace, ghimono- 
and signed the treaty of Shimonoseki (April 17, 1895), seki 



696 THE FAR EAST 

bj which they ceded Port Arthur, the Liao-tung peninsula, 
the island of Formosa, and the Pescadores Islands to Japan, 
also agreeing to pay a large war indemnity of two hundred 
million taels (about $175,000,000). China recognized the 
complete independence of Korea. 

But in the hour of her triumph Japan was thwarted by 
a European intervention, and deprived of the fruits of her 
victory. Russia now entered in decisive fashion upon a 
scene where she was to play a prominent part for the next 
ten years. The advance of Russia in eastern Asia had 
early aroused the apprehension of the Japanese. The 
building of the Trans-Siberian railroad, begun in 1891, 
seemed to them to indicate that Russia was cherishing ul- 
terior ambitions. The Japanese felt that a further increase 
of Russian power in Asia would be a menace to themselves. 
Their anxiety proved well founded. Russia showed that she 
entertained plans directly opposed to those of the Japanese. 
Interven- She induced France and Germany to join her in forcing them 
^°^ ° to give up the most important rewards of their victory, to 

France, and which the conquered Chinese had consented in the treaty. 
Gennany. These powers were determined that Japan should not have 
Port Arthur, should not have any foothold on the continent 
of Asia. They therefore demanded, " in the cause of peace 
and amity," that the treaty be revised. The reason given 
by the Russian Government to the Japanese Government was 
that " the possession of the peninsula of Liao-tung, claimed 
by Japan, would be a constant menace to the capital of China, 
would, at the same time, render illusory the independence of 
Korea, and would henceforth be a perpetual obstacle to the 
permanent peace of the Far East," and the Tsar advised the 
Mikado " to renounce the definite possession of the peninsula 
of Liao-tung." This was a bitter blow to the Japanese. 
Recognizing, however, that it would be folly to oppose the 
r^^ • ii *^^^6 great military powers of Europe, they yielded to the 
Pqj.^ " advice," restored Port Arthur and the peninsula to China, 

Arthur. and withdrew from the mainland, indignant at the action 



RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA 697 

of the powers, and resolved to increase their army and navy 
and develop their resources, believing that their enemy in 
Asia was Russia, with whom a day of reckoning must come 
sooner or later, and confirmed in this belief by events that 
crowded thick and fast in the next few years. 

The insincerity of the powers in talking about the in- 
tegrity of China and the peace of the East was not long 
in manifesting itself. The intervening powers immediately 
set about reaping their reward. Russia secured the right Russian 
to run the eastern end of the Trans-Siberian railroad across Entrance 
Manchuria, a province of China, to Vladivostok, and to „ , . 
construct a branch line south from Harbin into the Liao- 
tung peninsula, with a terminus at Talienwan. At the end 
of a certain time, and under certain conditions this railroad 
was to pass into the possession of China, but meanwhile 
Russia was given the right to send her own soldiers into 
Manchuria to guard it. This was the beginning of Russian 
control of Manchuria. She poured tens of thousands of 
troops into that Chinese province, and gradually acted as 
if it were Russian. She also acquired extensive mineral and 
timber rights in the province. 

In 1897 two German missionaries were murdered in the 
province of Shantung. The German Emperor immediately German 
sent a fleet to demand redress. As a result Germany secured aggression. 
(March 5, 1898) from China a ninety-nine year lease of the 
fine harbor of Kiauchau, with a considerable area round 
about, and extensive commercial and financial privileges in 
the whole province of Shantung. Indeed, that province be- 
came a German " sphere of influence." 

This action encouraged Russia to make further demands. Stissia 
She acquired from China (March ^7, 1898) a lease for ^^''^^''^ 
twenty-five years of Port Arthur, the strongest position in Arthur, 
eastern Asia, which, as she had stated to Japan in 1895, 
enabled the possessor to threaten Peking and to disturb the 
peace of the Orient. France and England also each acquired 
a port on similar terms of lease. The powers also forced 



698 



THE FAR EAST 



The 

" Boxer " 

movement. 



Rescue 
of the 
Legations. 



China to open a dozen new ports to the trade of the world, 
and extensive rights to establish factories and build railways 
and develop mines. 

It seemed, in the summer of 1898, that China was about 
to undergo the fate of Africa, that it was to be carved up 
among the various powers. This movement was checked by 
the rise of a bitterly anti-foreign party, occasioned by these 
act of aggression, and culminating in the Boxer insurrections 
of 1900. The " Boxers " were one of the numerous secret 
societies which abound in China. They were vehemently 
opposed to foreigners and to the foreign ideas which their 
own Emperor, after the defeat at the hands of the Japanese, 
wished to adopt. They enjoyed the support of the Empress- 
Dowager, aunt of the Emperor, a woman of remarkable 
force, who had been for many years the real ruler of China 
during the minority of the latter. She now emerged from 
her retirement, and by a coup d'etat pushed the Emperor 
aside, stopping abruptly the liberal reforms which he was 
inaugurating. The Government, for she was henceforth the 
leading power in the state, was in sympathy and probably in 
direct connivance with the Boxers. This movement grew rap- 
idly, and spread over northern China. Its aim was to drive the 
" foreign devils into the sea." Scores of missionaries and 
their families were killed, and hundreds of Chinese converts 
murdered in cold blood. Finally, the Legations of the various 
powers in Peking were besieged, and for weeks Europe and 
America feared that all the foreigners there would be mas- 
sacred. In the presence of this common danger the powers 
were obliged to drop their jealousies and rivalries, and send 
a relief expedition, consisting of troops from Japan, Rus- 
sia, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States. 
The Legations were rescued, just as their resources were 
exhausted by the siege of two months (June 13-August 14, 
1900). The international army suppressed the Boxer move- 
ment after a short campaign, forced the Chinese to pay a 
large indemnity, and to punish the ringleaders. In forming 



APPREHENSIONS OF JAPAN 699 

this international army, the powers had agreed not to 

acquire territory, and at the close of the war they guaranteed 

the integrity of China. Whether this would mean anything 

remained to be seen. 

The integrity of China had been invoked in 1895 and Japan 

ignored in the years following. Russia, France, and Ger- ^^ , 
=* *^ . ° . and appre- 

many had appealed to it as a reason for demanding the hensive. 

evacuation of Port Arthur by the Japanese in 1895. Soon 
afterward Germany had virtually annexed a port and a 
province of China, and France had also acquired a port in 
the south. Then came the most decisive act, the securing of 
Port Arthur by Russia. This caused a wave of indignation 
to sweep over Japan, and the people of that country were 
with difficulty kept in check by the prudence of their states- 
men. The acquisition of Port Arthur by Russia meant that 
now she had a harbor ice-free the year round. That Russia Eussian 

did not look upon her possession as merely a short lease, activity m 

Manclmria. 
but as a permanent one, was unmistakably shown by her 

conduct. She constructed a railroad south from Harbin, 
connecting with the Trans-Siberian. She threw thousands of 
troops into Manchuria ; she set about immensely strengthening' 
Port Arthur as a fortress, and a considerable fleet was sta- 
tioned there. To the Japanese all this seemed to prove that 
she purposed ultimately to annex the immense province of 
Manchuria, and later probably Korea, which would give her 
a large number of ice-free harbors and place her in a dominant 
position on the Pacific, menacing, the Japanese felt, the very 
existence of Japan. Moreover, this would absolutely cut 
off all chance of possible Japanese expansion in these direc- 
tions, and of the acquisition of their markets for Japanese 
industries. The ambitions of the two powers to dominate 
the East clashed, and, in addition, to Japan the matter 
seemed to involve her permanent safety, even in her island 
empire. 

Meanwhile, the other powers, observing the increasing Rus- 
sian control of Manchuria, repeatedly asked that power 



700 THE FAR EAST 

Diplomatic her intentions. Russian annexation of Manchuria would 
negotiations probably mean the closing of that province to the commerce 
Manclmria ®^ ^^^ ^^^^ °^ ^^^ world. The powers were, therefore, in- 
sistent, particularly the United States and England, in urg- 
ing the policy of the " open door." Russia gave the powers 
the formal promise to withdraw from Manchuria " as soon 
as lasting order shall have been established " there, but she 
steadily refused to specify the date, and this became, there- 
fore, one of the subjects of diplomatic negotiation. 
The Anglo- Japan's prestige at this time was greatly increased by a 
Japanese treaty concluded with England in 1902, establishing a de- 
- -- fensive alliance according to which the two powers " actu- 

ated solely by a desire to maintain the status quo and general 
peace in the extreme East, being, moreover, especially inter- 
ested in maintaining the territorial integrity of the Empire of 
China and the Empire of Korea, and in securing equal oppor- 
tunities in those countries for the commerce and industry of 
all nations," agreed, among other things, to remain strictly 
neutral in case either power became involved in a war con- 
cerning these matters, but also agreed that if a third power 
should join the enemy against the ally, then the second 
power would drop its neutrality and come to the assistance 
of its ally, making war and peace in common with it. This 
meant that if France or Germany should aid Russia in a 
war with Japan, then England would aid Japan. In a 
war between Russia and Japan alone England would be 
neutral. This treaty was, therefore, of great practical 
importance to Japan, and it also increased her prestige. For 
the first time in history, an Asiatic power had entered into 
an alliance with a European power on a plane of entire 
equality. Japan had entered the family of nations, and 
it was remarkable evidence of her importance that Great 
Britain saw advantage in an alliance with her. 

Russia, with the other powers, had recognized the integrity 
of China. Her position differed from theirs in that she 
had a large army in Manchuria, a Chinese province, and 



THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR 701 

a leasehold of the strong fortress and naval base of Port 
Arthur. She had definitely promised to withdraw from Man- 
churia when order should be restored, but she declined to 
make the statement more explicit. Her military prepara- Japan 

tions increasing all the while, the Japanese demanded of her snakes war 

. upon 

the date at which she intended to withdraw her troops from j^^jssia. 

Manchuria, order having apparently been restored. Nego- 
tiations between the two powers dragged on from August 
1903 to February 1904. Japan, believing that Russia was 
merely trying to gain time to tighten her grip on Manchuria 
by elaborate and intentional delay and evasion, and to pro- 
long the discussion until she had sufficient troops in the 
province to be able to throw aside the mask, suddenly broke 
off diplomatic relations and commenced hostilities. On the 
night of the 8th-9th of February, 1904, the Japanese tor- 
pedoed a part of the Russian fleet before Port Arthur and 
threw their armies into Korea. 

The Russo-Japanese war, thus begun, lasted from Feb- Busso- 
ruarj 1904 to September 1905, It was fought on both ^^^^^^^ 
land and sea. Russia had two fleets in Asiatic waters, one 1905, 
at Port Arthur and one at Vladivostok. Her land connec- 
tion with eastern Asia was by the long single track of the 
Trans-Siberian railway. Japan succeeded in bottling the 
Port Arthur fleet at the very outset of the war. Controlling 
the Asiatic waters she was able to transport armies and 
munitions to the scene of the land warfare with only slight 
losses at the hands of the Vladivostok fleet. One army drove 
the Russians out of Korea, back from the Yalu. Another 
under General Oku landed on the Liao-tung peninsula and 

cut off the connections of Port Arthur with Russia. It J^^^ 

Port 

attempted to take Port Arthur by assault, but was unable Arthur, 
to carry it, and finally began a siege. This siege was con- 
ducted by General Nogi, General Oku being engaged in 
driving the Russians back upon Mukden. The Russian 
General Kuropatkin marched south from Mukden to relieve 
Port Arthur. South of Mukden great battles occurred. 



702 



THE FAR EAST 



Mukden 
captured 
by the 
Japanese. 



Destruction 
of the 
Russian 
fleet, May 
27, 1905. 



The Treaty 
of Ports 
mouth. 



that of Liao-yang, engaging probably half a million men and 
lasting several days, resulted in a victory of the Japanese, 
who entered Liao-yang September 4, 1904. Their objective 
now was Mukden. Meanwhile, in August, the Japanese had 
defeated disastrously both the Port Arthur and Vladivostok 
fleets, eliminating them from the war. The terrific bombard- 
ment of Port Arthur continued until that fortress surren- 
dered after a siege of ten months, costing the Japanese 
60,000 in killed and wounded (January 1, 1905). The army 
which had conducted this siege was now able to march north- 
ward to co-operate with General Oku around Mukden. There 
several battles were fought, the greatest since the Franco- 
German war of 1870, lasting in each case several days. The 
last, at Mukden (March 6-10, 1905), cost both armies 
120,000 men killed and wounded in four days' fighting. The 
Russians were defeated and evacuated Mukden, leaving 40,- 
000 prisoners in the hands of the Japanese. 

Another incident of the war was the sending out from 
Russia of a new fleet under Admiral Rodjestvensky, which, 
after a long voyage, was attacked at its close by Admiral 
Togo as it entered the Sea of Japan and annihilated in 
the great naval battle of the Straits of Tsushima, May 27, 
1905. 

The two powers finally consented, at the suggestion of 
President Roosevelt, to send delegates to Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire, to see if the war could be brought to a close. 
The result was the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, 
September 5, 1905. The war between Japan and Russia 
had been fought in lands belonging to neither power, in 
Korea, and principally in Manchuria, a province of China, 
yet Korea and China took no part in the war, were passive 
spectators, powerless to preserve the neutrality of their soil 
or their independent sovereignty. 

By the Treaty of Portsmouth Russia recognized Japan's 
paramount interests in Korea, which country, however, was 
to remain independent. Both the Russians and the Japanese 



^'«^rj?iA^''' ft/ 



ALTSTKAlilxV 




RESULTS OF RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR 703 

were to evacuate Manchuria. Russia transferred to Japan 
her lease of Port Arthur and the Liao-tung peninsula, and 
ceded the southern half of the island of Saghalin. 

Japan thus stood forth the dominant power of the Orient. 
She had expanded in ten years by the annexation of For- 
mosa and Saghalin. She has not regarded Korea as in- 
dependent, but since the close of the war has virtually, though 
not nominally, annexed her,^ She possesses Port Arthur, 
and her position in Manchuria is one giving rise at the pres- 
ent moment to diplomatic discussion. She has an army of 
600,000 men, equipped with all the most modern appliances 
of destruction, a navy about the size of that of France, 
flourishing industries, and flourishing commerce. The drain 
upon her resources during the past ten years has been tre- 
mendous, and, appreciating the need of many years of quiet 
recuperation and upbuilding, she was willing to make the 
Peace of Portsmouth. Her financial difficulties are great, 
imposing an abnormally heavy taxation. No people has 
accomplished so vast a transformation in so short a time. 

The Russo-Japanese war cannot be said to have settled 
the Far Eastern Question, as the future of China is called. 
Wars may yet grow out of it. But if they do, it seems 
likely that a new factor will have to be considered, a re- 
juvenated and modern China. For the lesson of these events Reaction 
has not been lost upon the Chinese. The victories of Japan, ^^ these 
an Oriental state, over a great Occidental power, as well nj-^-j, 
as over China, has convinced many influential Chinese of 
the advantage to be derived from an adoption of Euro- 
pean methods, an appropriation of European knowledge. 
Moreover, they see that the only way to repel the aggres- 

* By an agreement signed by Korea and Japan, November 17, 1905, the 
control of the foreign relations of Korea was placed in the hands of the 
Japanese Government. It was also provided that a Japanese Resident- 
General should be stationed in Seoul. By a subsequent agreement, signed 
by the same parties, July 31, 1907, all administrative measures and all 
high official appointments are subject to the approval of the Resident- 
General. Japanese subjects are eligible to official positions in Korea. 



704 



THE FAR EAST 



China in 
process of 
transforma- 
tion. 



sions of outside powers is to be equipped with the weapons 
used by the aggressor. 

This change of attitude was represented after the Boxer 
rebellion by the Empress-Dowager herself, upon whom the 
invasion of her capital by the international army in 1900 
and the punishment inflicted upon the country were not lost. 
Returning to Peking she showed herself more accessible to 
foreigners and foreign ideas, and after 1900 she began to 
approve of reforms more far-reaching than those for which 
in 1898 she had put men to death. 

In the last few years the leaven of reform has been work- 
ing fruitfully in the Middle Kingdom. A military spirit 
has arisen in this state, which formerly despised the martial 
virtues. Under the direction of Japanese instructors a 
Chinese army is being constructed after European models, 
equipped in the European fashion. The acquisition of 
western knowledge is encouraged. Students are going in 
large numbers to foreign countries, European, American, 
20,000 of them to Japan. The State encourages the proc- 
ess by throwing open the civil service, that is, official careers 
to those who obtain honors in examinations in western sub- 
jects. Schools are being opened throughout the country. 
Even public schools for girls have been established, a re- 
markable fact for any Oriental country. Railroads are 
being built, and the Chinese have begun the economic de- 
velopment of their country, and are buying back where 
possible the concessions for mines and railways formerly 
granted to foreigners. In 1906 an edict was issued aiming 
at the prohibition of the use of opium within ten years. 

Moreover, the absolute monarchy is about to be changed 
into a constitutional one, the people of China are to receive 
political power and education. An imperial commission 
was sent to Europe in 1905 to study the representative 
systems of various countries, and on its return a committee, 
consisting of many high dignitaries, was appointed to study 
its report. 



CHINA PROMISED A CONSTITUTION 705 

In August 1908 an official edict was issued promising, in China 

promis 
constitution. 



the name of the Emperor, a constitution in 1917, and setting 



forth in detail the stages that will be reached each year in 
the conversion of the form of government until the new 
system is completely established. A piquant and highly 
modem illustration of the swift interplay of the nations in 
these days of world politics, of instantaneous transmission 
of news, is furnished by the action of Chinese reformers, who 
have urged that China should not lag behind Turkey and 
Persia, themselves very recent converts, indeed, to the faith 
in constitutions and parliaments, a faith which has spread so 
astoundingly since 1815 and which is fast winning the last re- 
treats of absolutism. 



CHAPTER XXXI 
RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



Unpopu- 
larity in 
Russia of 
the war 
with Japan. 



Open ex- 
pression 
of the 
popular 
discontent. 



We are now in a position to follow with some under- 
standing the very recent history of Russia, a history at 
once crowded, intricate, turbulent, the outcome of which 
is certainly obscure, but which seems to be the dawn of 
a new era — a dawn, however, still heavily overcast and lower- 
ing. That history is the record of the reaction of the 
Japanese war upon Russia herself, a war which may prove 
to be as far-reaching in its effects upon the Russian state 
and people as it has already proved itself to be upon Japan 
and China. 

That war was from the beginning unpopular with the 
Russians. Consisting of a series of defeats, its unpopu- 
larity only increased, and the indignation and wrath of 
the people were shown during its course in many ways. 
The Government was justly held responsible, and was dis- 
credited by its failure. As it added greatly to the already 
existing discontent, the plight in which the Government found 
itself rendered it powerless to repress the popular expression 
of that discontent in the usual summary fashion. There was 
for many months extraordinary freedom of discussion, 
of the press, of speech, cut short nov/ and then by the 
officials, only to break out later. The war with Japan 
had for the Government most unexpected and unwelcome 
consequences. The very winds were let loose. 

The war began early in February 1904. At a meeting 
of the Institute of Mining Engineers at St. Petersburg on 
February 23d, a resolution was passed stating " that the 
war with Japan has its origin in a policy conceived solely 
in the interests of a small privileged minority, to the detri- 

706 



ASSASSINATION OF PLEHVE 707 

ment of the vast majority of the Russian people, and that 
it is the result of the spirit of reckless adventure which 
characterizes the enterprises of the Government in the Far 
East." The Institute accordingly expressed its " profound 
dissatisfaction with the Government, which is the responsible 
author of this fresh national misfortune," and denounced the 
war as " at once inhuman and contrary to the interests of the 
people." 

The Minister of the Interior, in whose hands lay the Von Plehve's 
maintenance of public order, was at this time Von Plehve, one "°^ regime, 
of the most bitterly hated men in recent Russian history. 
Von Plehve had been in power since 1902, and had revealed a 
character of unusual harshness. He had incessantly and 
pitilessly prosecuted liberals everywhere, had filled the pris- 
ons with his victims, had been the center of the movement 
against the Finns, previously described, and seems to have 
secretly favored the horrible massacres of Jews which 
occurred at this time. He was detested as few men have 
been. He attempted to suppress in the usual manner the 
rising volume of criticism occasioned by the war by applying 
the same ruthless methods of breaking up meetings, exiling 
to Siberia students, professional men, workmen. He was Assassina- 
killed July 1904 by a bomb thrown under his carriage by a *^°" °^ 
former student. Russia breathed more easily. There im- 
mediately appeared a document which throws a remarkable 
light on the meaning of assassination in the minds of the 
more radical revolutionists in Russia. This was " an appeal 
to the citizens of the world," issued by the central committee 
of the Revolutionary Socialist party. Assuming responsi- 
bility for the " righteous act," and announcing its decision 
to put an end to Tsardom, it stated that Plehve had been 
" executed " because of the relentless policy of repression and 
reprisals, which he had applied against all those who strove 

for freedom in Russia. " The necessary violence of our ■*• ^^^sian 

defense of 
methods of combat," the appeal concluded, " should not hide assassina- 

from any one the truth. We disapprove absolutely . . . tion. 



708 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

a terrorist policy in countries that are free. But in Russia, 
where, owing to the reign of despotism, no open political 
discussion is possible, where there is no redress against the 
irresponsibility of absolute power throughout the whole bu- 
reaucratic organization, we shall be obliged to fight 
the violence of tyranny with the force of revolutionary 
right." 

Nicholas II The Emperor Nicholas II now showed a disposition to 

enters upon depart somewhat from the rigorous policy of Von Plehve. 

liberal oath ^^ appointed as Minister of Home Affairs in September, 
Prince Sviatopolk Mirski, a man of liberal tendencies. The 
new minister announced " that though the Russian people 
are as yet unfit for constitutional government, the local rep- 
resentative institutions of the Empire (the zemstvos) might 
be given greater freedom of action and larger opportunities 
without risk to the established system," and he spoke of 
" sincere confidence in the people " as essential to good gov- 
ernment. This aroused the hopes of the liberals. The press 
was allowed great freedom, which it used to express the 
people's demands, and in November 1904 representatives 
from the zemstvos were permitted to meet in St. Petersburg 
to state and discuss what they considered the needs of the 
country. Many other bodies did the same. Lawyers, acad- 
emic and professional faculties, learned societies, city councils, 
all criticised existing abuses and demanded remedies. Never 
had the Russian people uttered their desires so freely. A 
few months before under Plehve such meetings would have 
been broken up and their participants treated with customary 
severity. 

Demands of It appeared from all these expressions of opinion that 
■ though the liberals differed from each other on many matters, 
thej'^ were agreed on certain points. They demanded that 
the reign of law bo established in Russia, that the era of 
bureaucratic and police control, recognizing no limits of in- 
quisition and of cruelty, should cease. They demanded the 
individual rights usual in western Europe, freedom of con- 



WIDESPREAD DISORDER 709 

science, of speech, of publication, of public meetings and 
associations, of justice administered by independent judges, 
of legal trials for alleged lawbreakers. They also demanded 
greater participation of the people in local government, 
some sort of a national parliament which should share in 
making the laws of the Empire, and which should control 
the officials, and a national constituent assembly, to be sum- 
moned immediately, with power to frame a constitution em- 
bodying these privileges in fundamental law. The last two 
demands were considered by far the most important — a 
convention to give a constitution to Russia, and a parlia- 
ment henceforth to make the laws. But, however passionate Not granted 
and universal the demands, the Tsar showed no inclination to ^^ *^® ^^^'• 
grant them, and the discontent continued, fanned by the 
disclosures of the war, which grew ever more unpopular 
and disastrous as it progressed. Thousands of soldiers of 
the reserve, called out, escaped to Germany and Austria. 
Others were forced, only at the point of the bayonet, into widespread 
the trains that were to carry them to Manchuria. Hundreds disorder, 
of thousands of workmen were thrown out of employment 
by the failure of business enterprises, caused by the war; 
the harvest was bad, and it was found that the officials were 
enriching themselves at the expense of the nation's honor, 
selling for private gain supplies intended for the army, 
even seizing the funds of the Red Cross Society. The war 
continued to be a series of humiliating and sanguinary de- 
feats, and on January 1, 1905, came the surrender of Port 
Arthur after a fearful siege. 

The revolutionary agitation continued. The people de- 
sired concessions from the Tsar, but none came from him. 
University students in Moscow and St. Petersburg marched 
through the streets shouting, " Down with autocracy ! " 
" Stop the war ! " Finally, the Tsar spoke. Toward the The Tsar 
end of December 1904 he issued a decree in reply to the announces 

public demands. In it he stated the reforms which he con- ^^^ i^t^n- 

., - tions. 

sidered were most needed, and ordered the ministers to 



710 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

prepare the laws necessary to effect them. Some of these 
were identical with the wishes expressed by the zemstvos 
and the other assemblies, but the reformers noticed one 
critical omission. There was no mention of a national 
assembly. It was clear that, while the Emperor might grant 
some reforms, he had no intention of reducing his own auto- 
cratic powers, of restricting the bureaucracy, or of allowing 
the people any share in the government. 
Popular The agitation, therefore, continued unabated, more and 

dissatisfac- more embittered as the war progressed. January was sig- 
nalized by an event that aroused the horror of the civilized 
continuance -^ 

of disorder, world — the slaughter of " Bloody Sunday " (January 22, 
1905). Workmen in immense numbers, under the leader- 
ship of a radical priest. Father Gapon, tried to approach 
the Imperial Palace in St. Petersburg, hoping to be able 
to lay their grievances directly before the Emperor, as they 
had no faith in any of the officials. Instead of that, they 
were attacked by the Cossacks and the regular troops and 
the result was a fearful loss of life, how large cannot be 
accurately stated. 

All through the year 1905 tumults and disturbances oc- 
curred. Prince Sviatopolk Mirski, ill, foiled at every step, 
and undermined by reactionaries, was replaced by Buliguin 
(February 1905). The Government resumed its customary 
methods. Deeds of violence and repression on its part were 
met in turn by assassinations and bomb-throwing on the part 
of the revolutionists. Immense strikes were organized. Peas- 
ants burned the houses of the nobles. Mutinies in the army 
and navy were frequent. The uncle of the Tsar, the Grand 
Duke Sergius, one of the most pronounced reactionaries in 
the Empire, who had said " the people wants the stick," 
was assassinated. Russia was in a state bordering on 
anarchy. Finally the Tsar sought to reduce the ever-mount- 
. ing spirit of opposition by issuing a manifesto, concerning 

of August *^^ representative assembly which was so vehemently de- 

19, 1905. manded (August 19, 1905). 



MANIFESTO OF AUGUST 19, 1905 711 

In this he announced that " while preserving the funda- 
mental law regarding the autocratic power," he had resolved 
to call, not later than January 1906, a state council, or 
Duma, consisting of elected representatives from the whole 
of Russia. But this manifesto was only another disappoint- 
ment to the reformers, as the Duma was to be merely a 
consultative body, not a real legislature, as the elections to 
it were to be conducted by the very class most hated and dis- 
trusted, the bureaucracy, as the working and professional 
classes were not given the suffrage, and as the sessions of 
the Duma were not to be public. How small the electorate 
was to be was shown from the fact that St. Petersburg, with 
a population of over a million and a half, would have only 
nine thousand five hundred voters. 

Feeling, therefore, that the Emperor's concessions were 
inadequate and illusory, that Russia must be assured far 
greater liberties, the revolutionary parties continued their 
agitation. An agency of great effect when completely ap- 
plied was now resorted to, the general strike. Under present 
conditions, when governments dispose of large, well-equipped 
armies against which the people are powerless to fight, this 
is a weapon of immense value. It is, however, difficult to set The resort 
in operation, involving, as it does, the co-operation of vast ° ^ 
numbers m a strike, which can be maintained only if the strike, 
strikers have reserve funds large enough to prevent starva- 
tion. In Russia in October 1905 the attempt was made. 
It began with a railway strike, which included the whole 
Empire, and which cut off all communication both within 
Russia and with the outside world. Any one wishing to 
travel was forced to use the ordinary highways or the water, 
if that were possible. Commerce was tied up. Merchants 
could neither ship nor receive goods. Similar strikes oc- 
curred in most of the great factories. Practically all shops, 
except provision stores, were closed. In the large towns 
the gas and electric light companies ceased to operate. 
Druggists refused to sell medicines until reforms should be 



712 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



The 

Manifesto of 

October, 

1905. 



granted. The students of the universities struck, lawyers 
also ; the law courts were closed. No newspapers appeared. 
Stocks fell rapidly. 

This sharp, sweeping suspension of the ordinary and 
necessary activities of life created an insupportable situation, 
and exerted a terrific pressure on the Government. It was 
an extraordinarily dramatic protest against misrule. Forced 
to yield, at least somewhat, the Tsar issued a manifesto 
October 30, 1905, granting " the immutable foundations of 
civic liberty," freedom of speech, of conscience, of association, 
extending the suffrage to those then lacking it, leaving the 
matter of the permanent franchise to be determined by the 
Duma, and, most important of all, establishing " as an im- 
mutable rule that no law can come into force without the 
approval of the Duma, and that it shall be possible for the 
representatives of the people to participate effectively in 
the supervision of the legality of the acts of the public offi- 
cials." Count Witte was at the same time appointed prime 
minister, and PobyedonostsefP, hated by all liberals as the 
very soul of the cruel government of the last twenty years, 
was removed from his position. 

But it was evident that the police and bureaucrats in- 
tended to continue their usual practice of breaking up meet- 
ings, shooting, and arresting at will. Moreover, the revolu- 
tionists were not satisfied with the Tsar's concessions, but 
demanded the convocation of an assembly elected by univer- 
sal suffrage which should draw up a constitution for Russia, 
as a preliminary step absolutely essential to reassure the 
people. This the Tsar would not grant. The strike went 
on through November, new classes joining it, such as the 
bly refused, le^i-gj, carriers and telegraph operators. Dangerous mutinies 
in the army and navy were frequent, and brutal and bloody 
attacks upon the Jews, inspired in many cases by Government 
officials, shocked the western world. There was much street 
fighting in Moscow and other places. The Government re- 
fused the constituent assembly, but it ordered the elections 



The 

popular 
demand for 
a constitu- 
ent assem- 



THE ELECTION OF THE DUMA 713 

for the Duma to be held. Moreover, it made concessions The Govern- 
to Finland which brought peace to that distracted country, ™^"* makes 
by restoring the rights enjoyed by the duchy before the ^^ Finland, 
late usurpations. Russia continued in a highly troubled 
state, in fact, an irregular kind of civil war between re- 
actionaries seeking to recover lost ground and revolution- 
ists bent upon preventing a return to the old conditions. 
That the old odious methods were still extremely vigorous 
was shown by the fact that, in January 1906 alone, 78 
newspapers were suspended, 58 editors arrested, and thou- 
sands of people thrown into prison or exiled to Siberia, and 
most of Russia placed under martial law; all this after 
the Tsar in October had recognized the civil rights of the in- 
dividual. 

The Tsar had promised the Duma, which was to be a 
law-making body and was to have a supervision over the 
actions of officials. But before it met he proceeded to 
clip its wings. He issued a decree constituting the Council The 
of the Empire, that is, a body consisting largely of official Council 
appointees from the bureaucracy, or of persons associated j-mnire 
with the old order of things, as a kind of Upper Chamber 
of the legislature, of which the Duma should be the Lower. 
An elective element was to be introduced into the Council 
of the Empire. Laws must have the consent of both Council 
and Duma before being submitted to the Tsar for approval. 

The elections to the Duma were held in March and April 
1906, and resulted in a large majority for the Constitu- 
tional Democrats, popularly called the " Cadets," a name 
derived from the initial letters of the name of the party. 
Count Witte now resigned and was succeeded by Goremykin, 
whose first act was to issue in the name of the Tsar certain « organic 
" organic laws," laws that could not be touched by the Duma, laws." 

Thus the powers of that body were again restricted, before 
. , -, Opening 

it had even met. * *!,„ 

of the 

The Duma was opened by Nicholas H in person with Duma, May 
elaborate ceremony. May 10, 1906. It was destined to have 10> 1906. 



714 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



Demands 
of the 
Duma. 



The 

impotence 
of the 
Duma. 



a short and stormy life. It showed from the beginning 
that it desired a thoroughgoing reform of Russia along 
the well-known lines of western liberalism. It was com- 
bated by the court and bureaucratic parties, which had not 
been able to prevent its meeting, but which were bent upon 
rendering it powerless, and were only waiting for a favorable 
time to secure its abolition. It demanded an amnesty for 
all political offenders. " The first thought at the first 
assembly of the representatives of the Russian nation should 
be for those who have sacrificed their freedom for their 
country," said one orator. It was only able, however, to 
secure a partial amnesty. It demanded that the Council 
of the Empire, the second chamber, should be reformed, 
as it was under the complete control of the Emperor, and 
was thus able to nullify the work of the people's chamber. 
It demanded that the ministers be made responsible to the 
Duma as the only way of giving the people control over 
the officials. It demanded the abolition of martial law 
throughout the Empire, under cover of which all kinds of 
crimes were being perpetrated by the governing classes. It 
passed a bill abolishing capital punishment. As the needs 
of the peasants were most pressing, it demanded that the 
lands belonging to the state, the crown, and the monasteries 
be given to them on long leases. 

The Duma lasted a little over two months. Its debates 
were marked by a high degree of intelligence and by fre- 
quent displays of eloquence, in which several peasants dis- 
tinguished themselves. It criticised the abuses of the Gov- 
ernment freely and scathingly. Its sessions were often 
stormy, the attitude of the ministers frequently contemp- 
tuous. It was foiled in all its attempts at reform by the 
Council of the Empire, and by the Tsar. 

The crucial contest was over the responsibility of min- 
isters. The Duma demanded this as the only way of giving 
the people an effective participation in the government. 
The Tsar steadily refused. A deadlock ensued. The public 



THE DISSOLUTION OF THE DUMA 715 

was inflamed and disorders were rife among the people. 
A radical party among the peasants demanded that all 
the land of the country be given to them outright, without 
payment. The Tsar cut the whole matter short by dis- The Duma 
solving the Duma, on July 22, 1906, stating that he was dissolved. 
" cruelly disappointed " that " the representatives of the 
nation, instead of applying themselves to productive legis- 
lation, had strayed into spheres beyond their competence, 
had inquired into the acts of local authorities established 
by himself, and had commented upon the imperfections of 
the fundamental laws, which could only be modified by his 
Imperial will." March 5, 1907, was fixed as the date Stolypin 
for the meeting of a new Duma. Stolypin was appointed ^: 
prime minister in the place of Goremykin. Many of the minister, 
members of the Duma went to Viborg in Finland, where they 
issued a manifesto, signed by 230 of them, protesting against 
the dissolution of the Duma, and calling upon the people ^^® Viborg 
" to stand up for the downtrodden rights of popular repre- 
sentation," and to give the Government neither soldiers nor 
money, as it had no right to either without the consent of the 
people's representatives. They declared invalid all new loans 
that might be contracted without the approval of the Duma. 
As the people remained inactive, either because of indifference 
or because terrorized, the manifesto proved a mere flash 
in the pan. Most of those who signed it were prosecuted 
later, and were provisionally disfranchised and prevented 
from being elected to the second Duma. 

The second Duma was opened by the Tsar March 5, 1907. The second 
It did not work to the satisfaction of the Government. ^^^^- 
Friction between it and the ministry developed early and 
increased steadily. Finally the Government arrested sixteen 
of the members and indicted many others for carrying on 
an alleged revolutionary propaganda. This was, of course, 
a vital assault upon the integrity of the assembly, a gross 
infringement upon even the most moderate constitutional 
liberties. Preparing to contest this high-handed action. 



716 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 



The Tsar 
alters the 
electoral 
system. 



The third 
Duma. 



The 

autocracy 
asserts its 
supreme 
authority. 



the Duma was dissolved on June 16, 1907, and a new one 
ordered to be elected in September, and to meet in No- 
vember. An imperial manifesto was issued at the same 
time altering the electoral law in most sweeping fashion, 
and practically bestowing the right of choosing the large 
majority of the members upon about 130,000 landowners. 
This also was a grave infringement upon the constitutional 
liberties hitherto granted, which had, among other things, 
promised that the electoral law should not be changed with- 
out the consent of the Duma. The Tsar asserted now that 
" the right of abrogating the law and replacing it by a 
new law belongs only to the power which gave the first 
electoral law — the historic power of the Tsar of Russia." 

The third Duma, thus chosen on a very limited and pluto- 
cratic suffrage, was opened on November 14, 1907, and is 
still in existence (1909). Though composed in large measure 
of reactionaries and those who were only mildly progress- 
ive, nevertheless, this assembly, which Stolypin apparently 
thought would be a docile instrument for the ministry, has 
not entirely justified his expectations. An act of some 
significance was its refusal by a vote of 212 to 146 to 
introduce the word " autocracy " into the address to the 
Tsar. Stolypin thereupon announced that the autocracy 
was the supreme power in the state, and would assert itself 
whenever the safety of Russia should demand it. 

Thus the autocracy proclaimed anew its undiminished 
authority. Nevertheless, it has not yet dared to abolish 
the Duma outright, as urged to by the reactionaries. The 
Duma still exists, but is rather a consultative than a legis- 
lative body. With the mere passage of time it takes on 
more and more the character of a permanent institution, 
exerting a feeble influence on Russian affairs. However 
precarious its existence, however slight its power, it never- 
theless represents an experiment in constitutional govern- 
ment from the effects of which Russia will never be able to 
shake herself permanently free. The difficulty of cutting 



RUSSIA AND FINLAND 717 

this experiment short, of abolishing the institution outright, 
has been increased by the trend of events outside Russia, 
with Turkey, Persia, and China becoming, or preparing to be- 
come, constitutional states of the modern type. A decent 
regard for the opinions of mankind will tend to thwart a 
complete or permanent reversion to outlived forms of gov- 
ernment. 

Far the most important measure sanctioned by the third The trans- 
Duma was the law passed early in 1909 providing for the formation 
ultimate break-up of the historic form of the village com- ^^^ 
mune, or mir, the freeing of the peasants from the previous 
authority of the mir, the substitution of individual owner- 
ship of the land for the collective ownership, hitherto the 
cliief and unique characteristic of the commune. This is 
a great agrarian reform, destined inevitably to have mo- 
mentous consequences, though whether on the whole bene- 
ficial or disastrous it is impossible to foresee. The idea 
at the basis of the bill, which has received the sanction 
of the Tsar, was first brought forward by Count Witte, 
was later taken up by Stolypin and promulgated in the 
form of provisional decrees by the Emperor. The bill 
represents the will of the Government, not a concession 
wrung from it by the Duma. The Duma has merely con- 
sented. 

Meanwhile, Finland fared better than Russia. The at- The 
tacks upon the historic institutions and liberties of the restoration 
Finns, the attempted Russification of the duchy, have been ... . . 
described. The Finns, helpless before the overwhelming Finland, 
power of the Russian autocrat, were to find salvation in 
his discomfiture at the hands of the Japanese. Roused by 
the anarchy and impotence of the Government in 1905, they 
demanded vehemently the restoration of the constitutional 
rights of their country, and to this end ordered a general 
strike. On November 4, 1905, the Tsar capitulated, issu- 
ing a decree which granted the demands of the Finns and 
annulled the whole series of despotic measures enacted from 



718 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 

1899 to 1903. Finland was once more a free country, in the 
possession of a responsible government of her own. No 
sooner had the Finns recovered their rights and power than 
they proceeded to reform their government along demo- 
cratic lines. A bill was passed in May 1906, sanctioned by 
The Finnish the Tsar, altering the system of representation. In the place 
parliament q£ ^^le previous four Chambers, or Estates, there was hence- 
forth to be a single Chamber of two hundred members, of 
whom sixty were to form a Grand Committee, with certain 
powers to prevent hasty legislation. Universal suffrage was 
established ; women, as well as men, who have reached their 
twenty-fourth year, were given the right to vote, and were 
declared eligible for membership in the Chamber. Propor- 
tional representation was also instituted. 

The first elections to the new Chamber took place in 
April 1907. Eighty Socialists were returned out of the 
two hundred members, and nineteen women were chosen mem- 
bers, of whom one was a journalist, one a school-teacher, 
one a dressmaker, one a weaver, one an agitator for 
woman's rights, one the president of the Servant Girls' 
Union. Thus, for the first time in history, certain social 
classes, hitherto without political power, are directly repre- 
sented in a European parliament. In the elections of 1908 
the number of women absentees from the polls was consider- 
ably less than that of men absentees. 
Eenewed Troublous times began again for Finland in 1908. The 

troubles in question of the powers of the Finnish Diet, of the relations of 
Finland. ^^^ Grand Duchy to the Empire as a whole was raised once 
more and rapidly became acute. The Russian Government 
was resolved to bring Finland under close control in military 
and financial affairs, on the ground that she did not bear her 
share of the burdens of the State and that uniformity of 
legislation was necessary in matters so vital. The Finns 
planted themselves firmly upon their constitutional rights, 
and were unconciliatory. Toward the end of 1909 the 
autonomy of their country seemed to be drawing to its close. 



CHAPTER XXXII 
CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 

It is impossible within the limits of a single volume to 
present an adequate record of the nineteenth century, in all 
its rich complexity. Many aspects of its history, in them- 
selves of the first importance, must be ignored or dismissed 
with a mere allusion. It was a century of revolution — revo- 
lution in government, revolution in the material conditions 
and circumstances of life, revolution in knowledge and in 
mental outlook. We have been concerned chiefly with the 
record of its political and social changes. But in every sphere 
of endeavor the militant human spirit expressed its power. 
It was a century that must remain memorable by reason 
of the originality, the brilliancy, and the solidity of its 
achievements. To appraise definitively its significance is, 
of course, impossible. To feel the fulness of its power one 
must study it from many points of view, must contemplate 
it from many angles, an undertaking from which we are 
precluded here. 

It was a century of literature, copious, various in form literature, 
and content, diverse in its effects. Literature was a mirror 
of a stormy, changeful period and a dynamic force in the 
political, social, religious, and intellectual struggles of the 
age, for it was not its own excuse for being, but must serve 
some cause, must advance some propaganda. That the in- 
fluence of literature upon events and of events upon literature 
has been varied and profoundly significant, the history of 
the great movements of the age, nationalistic, imperialistic, 
democratic, humanitarian, abundantly proves. 

Not only was it a century of literature but it was a cen- 

719 



720 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



Music. tury of music. " Music," says an accomplished critic, 

" is the only one of the fine arts of which it can 
be said that it reached its highest development in the 
nineteenth century. ... It is the modem art par 
excellence." ^ 

It was a century in which the kindlier feelings of men 
gained a genial efflorescence, shown in their increasing desire 
to alleviate suffering and distress, their growing sensitiveness 
to cruelty and injustice, the disposition more and more preva- 
lent to aid the unfortunate, the defective, the stricken; to 
the strength of which emotion the hospitals, asylums, schools, 
retreats, and various relief services of every city and state 
bear vivid testimony, as does also much of the humanitarian 
legislation previously described. This tendency became stead- 
ily more pronounced as the century wore to its close and 
passed over into the new. 

It was a supremely brilliant century of science. In physics, 
in chemistry, in astronomy, in geology, in biology, in the 
various historical, legal, political, and social studies, in phi- 
losophy, in philology, in the critical study of literature 
and art, in every branch of investigation, the activity was 

Science. unremitting, the cumulative result revolutionary and stu- 
pendous. Not only were the confines of knowledge greatly 
widened, but the methods of its acquisition and dissemination 
were multiplied and perfected. The work was international 
in character, the product of many minds, of many labora- 
tories. That the well-being of men was vastly furthered 
by it all is most obvious. It would be impossible, for in- 
stance, to exaggerate the relief from fearful suffering, the 
gain to human life, brought about by the two discoveries 
of anesthetics and antiseptics, products of the scientific 
investigations of the century. In two respects, which have 
a closer connection with the general character of this volume, 
it is desirable to show how science has revolutionized the 

^ H. T. Finck in The Nineteenth Century, " A Review of Progress," 
239-240. 



THE TRANSFORMATION OF INDUSTRY 721 

material conditions of life, by its application to industry 

and to war. 

The transformation of industry and commerce accom- 
plished in the century is unique in the history of the world, 
a transformation so sweeping that in this respect the present 
age differs more from that of Louis XVIII than did his from 
that of Rameses II. This transformation has been the 
result of a series of discoveries and inventions too numerous 
even to mention. Among these, one stands pre-eminent, the 
placing at the disposition of man of a new motive force of 
incomparable consequence, steam, rendered available by the 
perfection of an engine for the transmission of its power. 
James Watt rendered this service to the race at the close 
of the eighteenth century, but it was not until the nineteenth 
was well advanced that its possibilities, the vast range of its 
utility, were clearly established. 

Consider the significance of the new agency. Up to the 
advent of the age of steam. Industry and commerce were ^^^^ ^^^ 
. essentially what they had been for many centuries. Pre- ©f steam, 
viously the only motive force had come from animal strength, 
and from wind and falling water. Mankind had very few 
machines, but manufacture was literally production by hand, 
and was carried on In small shops generally connected with 
the home of the manufacturer. There, In the midst of a 
few workmen, the proprietor himself worked. The imple- 
ments were few, the relations of master and journeyman 
and apprentice Intimate and constant, the differences of their 
conditions comparatively shght. Industry was truly do- 
mestic. In general each town produced the commodities 
which it required. Production was on a small scale, and was 
designed largely for the local market. Necessarily so, for 
the difficulty of communication restricted commerce. Down 
to the nineteenth century men traveled and goods were 
carried In the way with which the world had been familiar 
since time began. Only by horse or by boat could merchandise 
be conveyed. Roads were few in number, poor in quality. 



722 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 

bridges were woefully infrequent, so that traveler and cart 
were stopped by rivers, over which they were carried slowly, 
and often with danger, by boats or ferries. Practically no 
great improvement had been made in locomotion since the 
earliest times, save in the betterment of roadbeds and the 
establishment of regular stage routes. Napoleon, fleeing 
from Russia in 1812, and anxious to reach Paris as quickly 
as possible, left the army, and with a traveling and sleeping 
carriage and constant relays of fresh horses, succeeded, by 
extraordinary eff'orts day and night, in covering a thousand 
miles in five days, which was an average rate of eight or 
nine miles an hour, a remarkable ride for an age of horse 
conveyance. Where the Emperor of the French, command- 
ing all the resources of his time, could do no better, of course 
the average traveler moved much more slowly and merchan- 
dise more slowly still. 

The transmission of information could not be more rapid 
than the means of locomotion. The postal service was primi- 
tive, postage was high and very variable, and was paid by 
the receiver. In France, since 1793, there was a kind of 
aerial telegraph which, by means of signals, operated from 
the tops of poles, like those along the lines of modem rail- 
roads, could transmit intelligence from Paris to other cities 
rapidly. But this invention was monopolized by the State, 
and moreover ceased to operate when darkness or rain 
came on. 
Pdse of the Into this world of small industries and limited commerce 

ac ory came the revolutionary steam engine, destined to effect an 

system. , . . 

economic transformation unparalleled in the history of the 

race. It was applied to industry, then to commerce. First 
employed in mining, it was shortl}' adopted by the manu- 
facturers of cotton and woolen goods, to give the force for 
the inventions of Crompton and Arkwright and Hargreaves 
and Cartwright. Out of it the modern factory system of 
production arose, and it became the throbbing heart of every 
industry. The machine superseded the hand of man as the 



IMPROVED METHODS OF COMMUNICATION 723 

chief element in production, increasing the output ultimately 
in certain lines a hundred, even a thousand-fold. Domestic 
industry waned and disappeared. Manufacturing became 
concentrated in large establishments employing hundreds of 
men, and ultimately thousands. And this concentration of 
industry caused the rapid growth of cities, one of the char- 
acteristic features of the century. 

But there was a limit imposed upon the utility of the 
steam engine in industry. Production on the large scale 
involved necessarily two other factors — larger sources of 
supply from which to draw the raw materials, larger markets 
for the finished products. Right here the inadequate means of 
communication called halt. The necessity for improvement 
was imperative. A single illustration is sufficient evidence. 
The port of Liverpool and the great manufacturing city of 
Manchester were separated by only about thirty miles. Three 
canals connected them, yet traffic on them was so congested 
that it sometimes took a month for cotton to reach the 
factories from the sea.^ The new machine industry was in 
danger of strangulation. Moreover the size of cities was 
conditioned upon the ability to procure food supplies, an 
ability strictly limited by the existing methods of communica- 
tion. 

The steam engine, applied to locomotion, came to the Steam 
rescue of the steam engine applied to looms and spindles. ^^^^^°^* 
And first to locomotion on water. Fulton's steamboat, the 
Clermont, leaving New York August 7, 1807, arrived at 
Albany, a hundred and fifty miles distant, in thirty-two 
hours. The practicability of steam navigation was thus, 
after much experimenting, definitively established. But steam 
navigation only slowly eclipsed navigation by sail. In 1814 
there were only two steamers, with a tonnage of 426 tons, in 
the whole British Empire. In 1816, Liverpool, which now 
has the largest steam fleet in existence, did not have a single 
steamer. It is impossible here to trace the growth of this 
' Day, A History of Commerce, 296. 



724 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



The Great 
Western. 



The 

invention 
of the 
railroad. 



method of locomotion. Its expansion was reasonably rapid. 
It was at first thought impossible to construct ships large 
enough to carry sufficient coal for long voyages. It was not 
until 1838 that a ship relying solely upon steam propulsion 
crossed the Atlantic Ocean. The Great Western, a British 
vessel, sailed from Bristol to New York in fifteen days, to the 
discomfiture of those who were at that very time showing the 
impossibility of such a feat. " It was proved by fluxionary 
calculus," wrote Carlyle, " that steamers could never get 
across from the farthest point of Ireland to the nearest of 
Newfoundland ; impelling force, resisting force, maximum 
here, minimum there; by law of nature, and geometric dem- 
onstration; — what could be done.'' The Great Western 
could weigh anchor from Bristol Port; that could be done. 
The Great Western, bounding safe through the gullets of 
the Hudson, threw her cable out on the capstan of New 
York, and left our still moist paper demonstration to dry 
itself at leisure." The experimental stage was over. In 
1840, Samuel Cunard, a native of Nova Scotia, living in 
England, founded the first regular transatlantic steamship 
line, thus raising his name out of obscurity forever. In 1847 
the Hamburg-American, in 1857 the North German Lloyd, 
in 1862 the French lines began their notable careers, the 
two former now constituting veritable fleets and serving all 
parts of the globe. 

But more important still was the application of steam to 
locomotion on land, the invention of the railroad. This, like 
most inventions, was a slow growth. In the mines and 
quarries of England carts had for some time been drawn 
on rails made at first of wood, later of iron. It was found 
that horses could thus draw much heavier loads, the friction 
of the wheel being reduced. The next step was to substitute 
the steam engine for the horse. Several men were studying 
this problem in the early nineteenth century. William Hedley, 
chief engineer of a colliery near Newcastle, constructed in 
1813 a locomotive, Puffing Billy, which worked fairly well. 



THE INVENTION OF THE RAILROAD 725 

The significance of George Stephenson lies in the fact that 
by his inventions and improvements, extending through many 
years he made it " actually cheaper," to use his own words, 
" for the poor man to go by steam than to walk." His first 
locomotive, constructed in 1814, proved capable of hauling 
coal at the rate of three miles an hour but at such a rate 
was not commercially valuable. He perfected his machine by 
increasing the power of the boiler so that the Rocket was 
able to make thirty miles an hour at the opening of the 
Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830. The experi- 
mental stage was over. The railway was a proved success. 
Construction began forthwith and has continued ever since. 
The development of the new means of locomotion has pro- 
ceeded with the development of chemistry, metallurgy, me- 
chanics, engineering, electricity. Rails have been constantly 
improved, locomotives augmented in drawing power, bridges 
flung over rivers and ravines, tunnels cut through moun- 
tains. Navigation, too, has had its record of triumph. 
Steamships, plying regularly and in all directions, have 
become larger and larger, swifter and swifter, more and 
more numerous. Traveling and transportation have thus 
been revolutionized by methods entirely dissimilar from 
those in existence during all the previous history of man- 
kind. They represent not a difference of degree, but of 
kind. 

It is railways that have rendered possible the remarkable Importance 
economic transformation of the world, which must otherwise 
have been checked in mid-process. They have also aided in 
the work of nation-building, of empire-building, and have 
facilitated political concentration. They have become power- 
ful auxiliaries in war. " The lack," says President Hadley, 
" of a few miles of railroad connection in 1859 probably 
caused Austria to lose the battles of Solferino and Magenta, 
and changed the whole destiny of Italy. The energetic con- 
trol and use of every railroad line in 1870 enabled Germany to 
put her troops where they were most needed, and strike those 



726 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



telling blows which virtually decided the contest in a few 
days." ^ 

Another agency has co-operated with steam in the trans- 
formation of the conditions of modern industry and corn- 
Electricity, merce, electricity. It has become, within very recent years, 
the source of light and heat and motive power. But the 
marvelous service it has thus far rendered has been the 
instantaneous transmission of intelligence by the telegraph, 
which became practicable after 1835, and by the telephone, 
invented much later by Alexander Graham Bell (1876), only 
several years later still to become commercially valuable. 
Within the last twenty years the application of this new 
agency to life has made gigantic strides. 

The result of all this development, of the railroads, render- 
ing possible the extraordinary expansion of industry, of in- 
dustrial inventions, rendering possible the extraordinary ex- 
pansion of the railroads — for the latter are both cause and 
effect — and of this instantaneous transmission of intelligence 
by wire and cable, and its publication by the marvelously im- 
proved printing presses of our day, is the modem world of 
business which affects constantly and intimately the life of 
every man, the activity of every government. Humanity 
occupies a stronger position than ever before. Its increased 
knowledge and control of the forces of nature have en- 
abled it to produce in immensely greater quantities the 
necessities and comforts and luxuries of life. The applica- 
tion of machinery to production, in agriculture, in manu- 
facture, in transportation, has increased vastly the quan- 
tity and reduced the price of most commodities. Many 
products which only the well-to-do could formerly enjoy are 
now within the reach of the millions. The plane of living 
has been distinctly raised. The higher standard begets a 
desire for a standard higher still. 

But while general wealth has advanced, and is advancing 
with enormous strides, and while all have shared in the pro- 
^ Hadley, Railroad Transportation, 15. 



Standard 
of living. 



PRESENT SOCIAL PROBLEMS 727 

digious material progress, there is indubitably a growing 
feeling that the distribution of the benefits has been and is 
far from equitable and healthy, that the world's manual 
laborers have not gained from these improved methods of 
production as much as, in the interests of society as a whole, 
they should have gained. There is an increasing conviction 
in men's minds, to which the history of the last thirty or 
forty years bears cumulative witness on every page, that, 
given man's unexampled power over creative forces which 
formerly went to waste, poverty has no place in the 
modern world save as the doom of indolence or vice. 
Yet poverty abounds which cannot be justly ascribed to 
either. 

Out of this conviction and out of the disillusions and 
sufferings of the millions who have flocked to the cities, 
allured by higher wages, have sprung various movements, of 
which socialism is but one, although the most conspicuous and 
the most potent. And discontent now possesses powers which Popular 
it has never previously possessed. For the masses of to-day discontent, 
have been educated in the public schools, whereas, in 1815, 
they could, as a rule, neither read nor write ; have received a 
discipline in armies and in factories, a training in co- 
operation and management and judgment in their unions; 
have newspapers which conduct their propaganda, and ex- 
press their views ; have acquired a taste for politics, which at 
the beginning of the century was the characteristic of a small 
minority ; and exercise an increasing power in most states as 
they possess the suffrage. 

The supreme result of the economic and the democratic 
evolution of the century in the domain of politics is the 
sharpening concentration of the thought of our day upon 
the social and economic problems to which it itself has given 
rise. For, more and more penetrating into the foreground 
of the consciousness of every nation, is the condition of the 
most numerous class and the duty of society to improve it. 
Social amelioration is one of the insistent questions of the 



728 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



Spread of 
militarism. 



twentieth century, a question which will be answered, if at all, 
by democracy, the product of the nineteenth. 

There is another problem created by the advance of science 
which engrosses more and more the attention of thoughtful 
men. The rise and development of the militaristic spirit have 
been shown in the preceding pages. The Prussian military 
system, marked by scientific thoroughness and efficiency, has 
been adopted by all the countries of Europe. Europe is to-day 
what she has never been before, literally an armed continent. 
The burden is heavy and its weight increases with every ad- 
vance of science. For every discovery of a new explosive, 
every improvement in weapons is immediately adopted, 
regardless of expense. Thus old equipment becomes obsolete 
before it has ever been used in actual war. The rivalry of the 
nations to have the most perfect instruments of destruction, 
the strongest army and the strongest navy, is one of the 
most conspicuous features of the world to-day. Ships of 
war were made so strong that they could resist attack. 
New projectiles of terrific force were consequently required 
and the torpedo was invented. A new agency would be useful 
to discharge this missile and thus the torpedo boat was de- 
veloped. To neutralize it was therefore the immediate neces- 
sity and the torpedo-boat destroyer was the result. Boats 
that could navigate beneath the waters would have an ob- 
vious advantage over those that could be seen, and the sub- 
marine was provided for this need. And now we are about 
to take possession of the air with dirigible balloons and aero- 
planes, as aerial auxiliaries of war. And thus man's imme- 
morial occupation, war, gains from the advance of science 
and contributes to that advance. The wars of the past were 
fought on the surface of the globe. Those of the future 
will be fought in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, 
and in the waters under the earth. 

But all this is tremendously expensive. It costs more than 
instruments ^ hundred thousand dollars to construct the largest coast 
of war. defense gun, which carries twenty-one miles, and its single 



Cost of 
modern 



THE BURDEN OF MILITARISM 729 

discharge costs a thousand dollars. Ten millions are nec- 
essary to build a Dreadnought. The debts of European 
countries have been nearly doubled during the last thirty 
years, largely because of military expenditures. The mil- 
itary budgets of European states in this day of " armed 
peace " amount to not far from a billion and a half dollars a 
year, half as much again as the indemnity exacted by Ger- 
many from France in 1871. Peace hath her price no less 
than war. The burden is so heavy, the rivalry so keen that 
it has given rise to a movement which aims to end it. The 
very aggravation of the evil prompts a desire for its cure. 
In the summer of 1898 the civil and military authorities 
of Russia were considering how they might escape the neces- 
sity of replacing an antiquated kind of artillery with a 
more modern but very expensive one. Out of this discussion 
emerged the idea that it would be desirable, if possible, to 
check the increase of armaments. This could not be achieved 
by one nation alone but must be done by all, if done at all. 
The outcome of these discussions was the issuance by the Nicholas II 
Tsar, Nicholas II, on August 24, 1898, of a communication . . 
to those nations which were represented by diplomatic agents of 
at the Court of St. Petersburg, suggesting that an interna- a^^"i3'"ifi^*s. 
tional conference be held to consider the general problem. 
This paper is very significant. Some of its statements de- 
serve to be quoted : " In the course of the last twenty years 
the longings for a general appeasement have become espe- 
cially pronounced in the consciences of civilized nations. The 
preservation of peace has been put forward as the object 
of international policy ; in its name great states have con- 
cluded between themselves powerful alliances; it is the better 
to guarantee peace that they have developed, in proportions 
hitherto unprecedented, their military powers, and still con- 
tinue to increase them without shrinking from any sacrifice. 
All these efforts, nevertheless, have not yet been 
able to bring about the beneficent results of the desired 
pacification. The financial charges, following an upward 



730 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



The 

First Peace 

Conference 

at the 

Hague. 



Address 
of H. de 
Staal. 



march, strike the public prosperity at its very source. The 
intellectual and physical strength of the nations, labor and 
capital, are for the major part diverted from their natural 
application, and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of mil- 
lions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction 
which, though to-day regarded as the last word of science, 
are destined to-morrow to lose all value, in consequence of 
some fresh discovery in the same field. National culture, eco- 
nomic progress, and the production of wealth are either para- 
lyzed or checked in their development. ... It appears 
evident then that, if this state of things were prolonged, it 
would inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is de- 
signed to avert, and the horrors of which make every think- 
ing man shudder in advance." 

The conference, thus suggested by the Tsar, was held at 
the Hague in 1899. Twenty-six of the fifty-nine sovereign 
governments of the world were represented by one hundred 
members. Twenty of these states were European, four were 
Asiatic — China, Japan, Persia, and Siam, — and two were 
American — the United States and Mexico. The Conference 
was opened on the 18th of May and closed on July 29th. 

That the problem concerned all the world, that Asia and 
America were as truly involved as Europe, that the day of 
isolation is over, when a nation may live unto itself, was 
shown in the address of the President of the Conference, M. de 
Staal, a Russian delegate. " We perceive between nations," 
said he, " an amount of material and moral interests which is 
constantly increasing. The ties which unite all parts of the 
human family are ever becoming closer. A nation could not 
remain isolated if it wished. ... If, therefore, the nations 
are united by ties so multifarious, is there no room for seeking 
the consequences arising from this fact.? When a dispute 
arises between two or more nations, others, without being 
concerned directly, are profoundly affected. The conse- 
quences of an international conflict occurring in any portion 
of the globe are felt on all sides. It is for this reason that 



THE INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE 731 

outsiders cannot remain indifferent to the conflict — they are 
bound to endeavor to appease it by conciliatory action." 
Among the means suggested are mediation and arbitration. 
On another occasion the same member said : " The forces of 
human activity are absorbed in an increasing proportion by 
the expenses of the mihtary and naval budgets. . . . Armed 
peace to-day causes more considerable expense than the most 
burdensome war of modern times," and another Russian 
delegate exclaimed : " The idea of the Emperor of Russia 
is grand and generous. ... If not this first Conference, 
it will be a future Conference which will accept the idea, for 
it responds to the wants of all nations." 

A member of the German delegation, General von Schwarz- Address of 
hoff, however, struck the opposite note. " I can hardly be- General von 
lieve that among my honored colleagues there is a single ^ ^^^^ ^ ' 
one ready to state that his Sovereign, his Government, is 
engaged in working for the inevitable ruin, the slow but 
sure annihilation of his country. ... So far as Ger- 
many is concerned, I am able completely to reassure her friends 
and to relieve all well-meant anxiety. The German people 
is not crushed under the weight of charges and taxes, — it 
is not hanging on the brink of an abyss ; it is not approaching 
exhaustion and ruin. Quite the contrary : public and private 
wealth is increasing, the general welfare and standard of 
life is being raised from one year to another. So far as 
compulsory military service is concerned, which is so closely 
connected with these questions, the German does not regard 
this as a heavy burden, but as a sacred and patriotic duty 
to which he owes his country's existence, its prosperity, and 
its future." 

A French representative, M. Bourgeois, replied that Gen- Address 
eral von Schwarzhoff " will surely recognize with me that, of M. 
if in his country, as well as in mine, the great resources, which bourgeois, 
are now devoted to military organization, could, at least in 
part, be put to the service of peaceful and productive activity, 
the grand total of the prosperity of each country would not 



732 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



cease to increase at an even more rapid rate." . . . And 
he added: "The object of civilization seems to us to be to 
abolish, more and more, the struggle for life between men, 
and to put in its stead an accord between them for the 
struggle against the unrelenting forces of matter." 

The great military powers had spoken. The feeling of 
the lesser states was voiced bj a representative of Bulgaria 
who declared " that armed peace was ruinous, especially for 
small countries whose wants were enormous, and who had 
everything to gain by using their resources for the develop- 
ment of industry, agriculture, and general progress." ^ 

With such differences of opinion the conference was un- 
able to reach any agreement upon the fundamental question 
which had given rise to its convocation. It could only adopt 
a resolution expressing the belief that " a limitation of the 
military expenses which now burden the world is greatly 
to be desired in the interests of the material and moral well- 
being of mankind " and the desire that the governments 
" shall take up the study of the possibility of an agreement 
concerning the limitation of armed forces on land and sea, 
and of military budgets." 

With regard to arbitration the Conference was more suc- 
cessful. It established a Permanent Court of Arbitration 
for the purpose of facilitating arbitration in the case of 
Arbitration, international disputes which it has been found impossible to 
settle by the ordinary means of diplomacy. The Court does 
not consist of a group of judges holding sessions at stated 
times to try such cases may be brought before it. But it 
is provided that each power " shall select not more than four 
persons of recognized competence in questions of international 
law, enjoying the highest moral reputation and disposed to 
accept the duties of arbitrators," and that their appointment 
shall run for six years and may be renewed. Out of this 
long list the powers at variance choose, in a manner indicated, 

^ Quotations are from Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague, 
Chapters II and III passim. 



Establish- 
ment of a 
Permanent 
Court of 







Get 

ZZn Por 

mo i9«'.' 



COLONL 

EITROPI 

AT THE 




^SSESSIONS 

POWERS 

ENT TIME. 



15 30 45 60 75 BO 103 120 135 1 



A PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION 733 

the judges who shall decide any given case. When in the 
discharge of their duties, such judges are to have the privi- 
leges and immunities enjoyed by diplomatic agents. 

Recourse to this Court is optional, but the Court is always 
ready to be invoked. Arbitration is entirely voluntary with 
the parties to a quarrel, but if they wish to arbitrate, the 
machinery is at hand, a fact which is, perhaps, an encourage- 
ment to its use. 

The work of the First Peace Conference was very limited 
and modest, yet encouraging. But that the new century was 
to bring not peace but a sword, that force still ruled the 
world, was shortly apparent. Those who were optimistic 
about the rapid spread of arbitration as a principle destined 
to regulate the international relations of the future were 
sadly disappointed by the meager results of the Conference, 
and were still more depressed by subsequent events. 

The nineteenth century had been ushered in by a series The 

of wars of unexampled magnitude and of shattering effect, twentieth 

century 
The twentieth century also opened with conflicts on an even Q^gj^g with 

vaster scale, involving larger armies, and likely to prove of wars, 
still deeper import. The very location of the theaters of 
war in the two cases exemplifies admirably the changes that 
have come over the world during a hundred years. The 
wars of Napoleon were fought in the very heart of Europe. 
Those of the opening decade of the twentieth century were 
fought in eastern Asia and southern Africa, regions that 
for Napoleon, whose imagination, however, was quite lively, 
were the very confines of the world. Russia fought in Man- 
churia, England fought in the Transvaal, five thousand miles 
and more from the base of supplies. Distance has been anni- 
hilated. Again, both wars arose largely out of the ambi- 
tions of modern commerce, were expressions of the expansive, 
aggressive character of modern business, the relentless pres- 
sure of economic interests in the world of to-day, of what 
we call, in short, imperialism. 

During this decade, also, the expenditures of European 



734 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 



The Second 
Peace 
Conference 
at the 
Hague, 



Work 
of the 
Conference. 



states upon armies and navies continued to increase, and 
at an even faster rate than ever. During the eight years, 
from 1898 to 1906, they augmented nearly £70,000,000, 
the sum total mounting from £250,000,000 to £320,000,000. 

Such was the disappointing sequel of the Hague Confer- 
ence. But despite discouragements the friends of peace were 
active, and finally brought about the Second Conference at 
the Hague in 1907. This also was called by Nicholas H, 
though President Roosevelt had first taken the initiative. 
The Second Conference was in session from June 15th to 
October 18th. It was attended by representatives from 
forty-four of the world's fifty-seven states, claiming sov- 
ereignty in 1907. The number of countries represented in 
this Conference, therefore, was nearly double that represented 
in the first, and the number of members was more than 
double, mounting from one hundred to two hundred and 
fifty-six. The chief additions came from the republics of 
Central and South America. The number of American gov- 
ernments represented rose, indeed, from two to nineteen. 
Twenty-one European, nineteen American, and four Asiatic 
states sent delegates to this Second Conference. Its member- 
ship illustrated excellently certain features of our day, among 
others the indubitable fact that we live in an age of world 
politics, that isolation no longer exists, either of nations or 
of hemispheres. The Conference was not European but in- 
ternational, — the majority of the states were non-European. 

The Second Conference accomplished much useful work in 
the adoption of conventions regulating the actual conduct 
of war in more humane fashion, and in defining certain 
aspects of international law with greater precision than 
heretofore. But, concerning compulsory arbitration, and 
concerning disarmament or the limitation of armaments, 
nothing was achieved. It passed this resolution : " The Con- 
ference confirms the resolution adopted by the Conference of 
1899 in regard to the restriction of military expenditures ; 
and, since military expenditures have increased considerably 



SIGNIFICANCE OF HAGUE CONFERENCES 735 

in nearly every country since the said year, the Conference 

declares that it is highly desirable to see the governments 

take up the serious study of the question." 

This platonic resolution was adopted unanimously. A 

grim commentary on its importance in the eyes of the 

governments is contained in their naval programmes for 1908 

and 1909, which included larger appropriations than ever. Cost of the 

Even nations which have hitherto done without ships of the^^^^*^^ °^ 
_, , , 11. 11 • blood and 

Dreadnought type have begun to enter the costly competi- ^^qj^ 

tion, such as Brazil, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, while Great 
Britain, Germany, and the United States are straining every 
nerve to surpass their rivals. It is estimated that the armies 
of Europe number about four million men on a peace footing, 
about ten million on a war footing, and that the cost of 
maintaining the armies and navies of Great Britain, Ger- 
many, and France alone amounts annually to nearly nine 
hundred million dollars (1909). 

Whether the Hague Conferences will be reckoned in history 
as simply inconsequential outbursts of sentiment, as merely 
the baseless fabric of a vision, or whether they will be looked 
upon as the small beginnings of great institutions, remains to 
be seen. Meanwhile, the comment of Elihu Root, at that 
time American Secretary of State, may be quoted : " Each 
Conference will inevitably make further progress and, by 
successive steps, results may be accomplished which have 
formerly appeared impossible. . . . The most valuable 
result of the Conference of 1899 was that it made the work Significance 
of the Conference of 1907 possible. The achievements of the°^ *^® 

PG3.Gf* Con." 

two Conferences justify the belief that the world has ^'^tered- 
upon an orderly process through which, step by step, in suc- 
cessive conferences, each taking the work of its predecessor 
as :ts point of departure, there may be continual progress 
toward making the practice of civilized nations conform to 
their peaceful professions." ^ 

The Hague Conference of 1907 was more representative 
' Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 503. 



736 CERTAIN FEATURES OF MODERN PROGRESS 

than the Congress of Vienna of 1815, with which this history 
opened, for it represented practically the whole human race. 
If the movement inaugurated in 1898 should, in the long 
Arbitration, result of time, facilitate the resort to arbitration as the 
usual procedure of nations in their relations with each other, 
Nicholas II would have been instrumental in founding an 
alliance far more holy than the one to which his predecessor 
on the Russian throne gave such celebrity in the early nine- 
teenth century. The origins of the British Parliament and 
of the British Constitution were modest, indeed. But the 
nineteenth century saw every nation struggling to gain the 
political institutions which England had been fashioning 
thoughout the centuries. Will arbitration enter into the 
mentality of the race, will it find the same solid lodgment 
amid the facts of life, as have parliamentarism and constitu- 
tionalism .f* And if so, will it require as many centuries.'' 

The historian, having reached the point of interrogation, 
may, in all comity, leave the answer to his question to the 
prophet or to the future. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

GENERAL HISTORIES 

Cambridge Modern History, vol. X, The Restoration, vol. XI, The 
Groivth of Nationalities, and vol. XII, The Latest Age (announced). 
The most considerable modern work in English. A co-operative history 
written by various English and Continental scholars, and including chap- 
ters on economic and literary as well as political history. Lacks unity 
but is critical and informing. Is a kind of historical encyclopedia 
packed full of facts. A useful feature is the bibliographies connected 
with each chapter which are extensive lists without criticism or descrip- 
tion. 

Seigxobos, C, a Political History of Europe Since ISl^f. Translation 
edited by S. M. Macvane. Brings the history of each country down to 
about 1897. Objective, impartial. A strictly political history. Each 
chapter has an excellent, brief, critical bibliography. 

Fyffe, C. a.. History of Modern Europe. Published in three volumes, 
also complete in one. Covers period 1792-1878. A careful, clear, 
scholarly, admirably written political history of the chief Continental 
nations. 

Andrews, C. M., The Historical Development of Modern Europe, 2 
vols. (1896-1898). Brings the history of the chief Continental nations 
down to 1897. The smaller nations are not treated. The narrative is 
clear, informing, studiously fair. The most important chapters are 
perhaps those on the revolutions of 1848 and on the diplomacy of the 
Crimean War. 

Andrews, C. M., Contemporary Europe, Asia and Africa, (1902). 
Covers excellently the period from 1871 to 1901. Forms a part of the 
series of The History of All Nations. 

Phillips, W. Alison, Modern Europe, 1815-1899. A purely political 
study, limited, moreover, almost entirely to external or diplomatic history. 
Accurate and trustworthy within its circumscribed limits. Very weak 
on the period after 1878. 

Robinson, J. H., and Beard, C. A., The Development of Modern 
Europe, vol. II. Emphasizes the significance of economic factors in 
the history of the century. Has interesting chapters on the industrial 
revolution, on Russia, on European expansion, and on some of the great 
problems of to-day. 

MiJLLEH, Political History of Recent Times. Pronouncedly liberal 
point of view. Journalistic, fairly full. Comes down to about 1880. 

KiRKPATRiCK, F. A., editor. Lectures on the History of the Nineteenth 
Century. Cambridge, 1902. Consists of seventeen lectures given by 
various scholars to university extension students. Particularly interest- 
ing are the lectures on Germany by Marcks, on France by Mantoux, and 
on Russia by VinogradoflF. 

Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire g4n4rale du IVe si^cle d nos jours. 
Vols. X, XI, XII cover the period from 1815 to 1900. A co-operative 
history by French scholars. Articles are of varying, though on the 
whole, of high excellence. The narrative is generally clear and not 
overloaded with facts. The bibliographies are very useful. 

737 



738 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Debidouh, Histoire diplomatique de I'Europe, 1814-1878, 2 vols. (1891). 
A useful aid to the study of the period, well proportioned, well arranged 
and well written; on the wliole impartial. Authorities are not quoted 
for any statements and the bibliographies at the opening of each chap- 
ter are inadequate, miscellaneous, and not critical. 

Bourgeois, Emile, Manuel historique de politique dtrang^re, 3 vols. 
(1905); vols. II and III concern our period; come down to 1878. 

There are many German histories of this period. The fullest are the 
volumes in Oncken's Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen; 
namely Flathe, Das Zeitalter der Restauration und Revolution (1815- 
1851) ; BuLLE, Geschichte des ziveiten Kaiserreiches und des Konigreiches 
Italien; Bamberg, Geschichte der orientalischen Angelegenheit im 
Zeitraume des Pariser und des Berliner Friedens; Oncken, Das 
Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm. These volumes collectively cover the 
period from 1815 to 1888 in about four thousand pages. 

Another excellent German work is Bulle, Geschichte der neuesten 
Zeit, i vols. (1886-1887), covering the period 1815-1885. The most 
scientific and authoritative history on the years succeeding 1815 is 
Stern, A., Geschichte Europas seit den Vertrdgen von 1815 bis zum 
Frankfurter Frieden von 1811. Four volumes have appeared, carrying 
the narrative down to about 1835. This work is indispensable to every 
student. It is rigidly scientific, scholarly, free from partisanship, and 
includes much new archival material. It is the most thorough and 
most informing work on the period in any language and considerably 
extends our knowledge. It ought to be translated. 

Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty since 1814, 4 vols. (1875-1891). 
Contains treaties in English covering the period from 1814 to 1891, 
showing how the " Map of Europe " has been changed by treaties or by 
other international arrangements since the overthrow of Napoleon I. 

Very useful are the biographical dictionaries of various countries: for 
Austria-Hungary; Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums 
Oesterreich, 60 Theile, Vienna (1856-1891); for Germany; Liliencrok 
und Wegele, Allgemeine deutsche Biographic, Leipsic (1875 seq. — ), 
now 54 volumes; for France, Nouvelle biographic g6n4rale, edited by 
HoEFER, 1855-1866, 46 vols., not limited to France; for England, Stephek 
and Lee, editors, Dictionary of National Biography, 67 vols. (1885- 
1903). 

CHAPTER I 

The Reconstruction of Europe 

For Sources: See Kluber, Akten des Wiener Kongresses; Hertslet, 
Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. I; British and F;: reign State Papers, 
vol. II, 1814-1815, The First and Second Treaties of Paris may be 
found in Anderson, Constitutions and Documents, Nos. 91 and 99; The 
Treaty of the Holy Alliance in University of Pennsylvania, Translations 
and Reprints, vol. I, 3; or in Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern 
European History, vol. I, No. 183. General Treatment of the Congress: 
Cambridge Modern History, vol. IX, chaps. XIX and XXI; Lavisse et 
Rambaud, Histoire g^n^rale, vol. X, chap I; Debidour, Histoire diplo- 
matique, vol. I, chap. I. Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. I, chap. I; 
SoREL, L' Europe et la Revolution frangaise, vol. VIII, pp. 355-505; 
HotssAYE, H., I8I4. Oncken, Das Zeitalter der Revolution, des 
Kaiserreiches und der Befreiungskriege, vol. II, pp. 832-911; Treitschke, 
Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. I, pp. 597-711; 
Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, vol. I, chap. Ill; Springer, 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 739 

Geschickte Oesterreichs, vol. I, pp. 254-274; Thayer, Dawn of 
Italian Independence, vol. I, pp. ll(i-138. See also Debidour, 
Etudes critiques sur la Revolution, I'Empire et la Piriode con- 
temporaine, which include studies on Talleyrand au Congr^s de 
Vienne and La liquidation de 1S15; see also Sorel, Essais d'histoire et 
de critique, containing a study on Talleyrand au Congr^s de Vienne. 
On Second Treaty of Paris: Sorel, L'Europe et la Revolution, vol. 
VIII, pp. 467-493; Sorel, Le Trait4 de Paris du 20 novembre, 1815. 
On Metternich : Malleson, Life of Prince Metternich (1888); Mazade, 
Un chancelier d'ancien regime; Le rdgne diplomatique de Metternich, 
(1889); Allgemeine deutsche Biographic, vol. XXIII, article by Bailleu 
vi'ith critical bibliography; Wurzbach, Bio gr aphis ches Lexikon des 
Kaiserthums Oesterreich, Achtzehnter Theil, with extensive bibliography; 
Sorel, Essais d'histoire et de critique, Metternich, pp. 3-54; Debidour, 
Etudes critiques sur la Revolution, etc., pp. 259-296. Metternich's 
Memoirs, in part, have been translated into English by Mrs. Napier, 
5 vols. For criticism of them, see: Bailleu, Historische Zeitschrift, 
XLIV, pp. 227-277, and Soeel, Essais d'histoire et de critique, article 
cited above. 

On the lighter side of Congress of Vienna, see: Memoirs of the Prince 
de Ligne, translated by Mrs. Wormeley (1902); vol. II, pp. 261-292, con- 
taining extracts from Lagarde; see also Lagarde, Comte de. The Journal 
of a Nobleman, being a Narrative of His Residence at Vienna During 
the Congress (1833). 

CHAPTER II 

Reaction in Austria and Germany 

An invaluable bibliography of German history is Dahlmann-Waitz, 
Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte, 7th edition, edited by Branden- 
burg (1906-1907). 

The Act of Confederation and the Carlsbad Decrees are in University 
of Pennsylvania, Translations and Reprints, vol. I, No. 3; also in Robin- 
son and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. II. An ex- 
cellent collection of speeches illustrating the history of Germany from 
1808 to 1893 is Flathe, Deutsche Beden, 2 vols. (1893-1894). 

On Austria in 1815 and immediately after: see. Stern, Geschichte 
Europas, vol. I, chap. Ill; Springer, Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem 
Wiener Frieden, vol. I, 275-322. There is in English no history of 
Germany in the nineteenth century. One has been announced for many 
years by J. W. Headlam, to cover the period from 1815 to 1889, but it 
has not yet appeared. Henderson, E. F., A Short History of Germany, 
vol. II, pp. 324-450, covers in an animated fashion the years from 1815 
to 1871. Poultney Bigelow's History of the German Struggle for 
Liberty, 4 vols. (1905), comes down to 1848, but has slight importance, 
containing too little history, and too much gossip. The author's penchant 
for the picturesque leads him far and wide at times. An admirable 
survey, the most satisfactory treatment of Germany covering the period 
of this chapter, is in Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. I, chap. IV. See 
also Kat!fmann, Politische Geschichte Deutschlands in Neunzehnten 
Jahrhundert, pp. 73-136. Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, 
vol. I, pp. *52-81. The most extensive account of these years is Treit- 
schke's Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. II, 1814- 
1819. Treitschke's history in five volumes comes down to 1848. It has 
had an immense popularity in Germany. It is based upon extensive 
research, is full of life and color. Treitschke was one of the great prose 
writers of Germany. His history, however, is a work of art and 



740 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

propaganda, not of science. It is marked by unbridled chauvinism, by 
the frankest and most obtrusive revelation of the author's vigorous pre- 
dilections and aversions. Eloquent and interesting throughout, and 
marked by a wealth of historical and literary learning, it is woefully 
lacking in impartiality and justice. Treitschke was called to the Uni- 
versity of Berlin in 1874, in the face of the opposition of Ranke, who 
would not recognize him as an historian, but only as a publicist. Van 
Devekter, M. L., Cinquante annees de I'histoire federals de VAllemagne 
(Brussels, 1870). A discussion of the organization and character of the 
Federal Constitution and an account of the history of the German 
Confederation from its establishment in 1815 to its dissolution in 1866. 



CHAPTER III 

Reaction and Revolution in Spain and Italy 

For a general account: see, Butler Clarke, Modern Spain, 1815-1898, 
chaps. II and III; Hume, Modern Spain, chap. V; Hubbard, Histoire 
contemporaine de I'Espagne. Vols. I and II cover the reign of Ferdi- 
nand VII, 1814-1833. On Italy, between 1815 and 1821: see, Thayer, 
W. R., The Dawn of Italian Independence, vol. I, pp. 139-311, the best 
account in English; also, Stillman, W. J., The Unity of Italy, pp. 1-40. 
On social conditions of Italy after 1815: see, Bolton King, A History 
of Italian Unity, vol. I, chaps. Ill, IV, V. On the rise and activity of 
the secret societies, Johnston, R, M., The Napoleonic Empire in Southern 
Italy, vol. II, pp. 1-139. The most important treatment of the whole 
subject of the conditions in Spain and Italy, the revolutions and the 
congresses, is in Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. II, chaps. I, III-VI, 
VIII-X. Cambridge Modern History, vol. X, chaps. I, IV, VII, may 
be consulted. Also Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte, vol. Ill, pp. 131- 
191, 254-283; Debidour, L'histoire diplomatique, chaps. III-V. On 
England's foreign policy from 1815 to 1827: Walpole, History of 
England since 1815, vol. Ill, chap. X; Brodrick and Fotheringham, 
History of England, 1801-1837, chap. X; Paxson, F. L., The In- 
dependence of the South American Bepublics, an excellent account 
of the wars of liberation and a study of the policies of England and 
the United States. On the Monroe Doctrine: Reddaway, W. F., The 
Monroe Doctrine (1898), or Turner, F. J., Rise of the New West (1906), 
chap. XII; Temperley, H. W. V., Life of Canning (1905). 

CHAPTER IV 
France During the Restoration 

For sources: see, Anderson, Constitutions and Documents, No. 93, 
Constitutional Charter of 1814; No. 101, various press laws. On the 
crisis and revolution of 1830, 76f<i, Nos. 103 and 104, also: Robinson and 
Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. II, Nos. 185-190. A 
very well chosen selection of extracts from the political speeches of this 
period, which was one of high distinction in parliamentary oratory, is 
found in Chabrier, Albert, Les orateurs politiques de la France 
(1902); pp. 389-554 cover the period 1815-1830. For speeches, in 
extenso, one must consult Le Moniteur or Les archives parlementaires , 
edited by Mavidal et Laurent, second series. An index volume facili- 
tates the use of this indispensable but very elaborate work. 

There is no satisfactory history of France during the nineteenth 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 741 

century, Lebon, Modern France, 1789-1895 (Story of the Nations 
Series, 1898), is a brief, frequently inaccurate outline by an active 
politician. Coubertin, France since 1814 (1890), is a brief, popular, 
unscholarly account. W. G. Berry, France since Waterloo (1909), more 
satisfactory than the preceding, is readable and useful. A very sug- 
gestive little book is G. Lowes Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in 
Modern France (1892), not a history of France, but a description of the 
various phases and schools of political thought from 1789 to 1871. 

On the period of this chapter, 1815 to 1830, there are chapters in the 
Cambridge Modern History, vol. X, chaps. 11 and III, and Lavisse et 
Rambaud, Histoire generale, vol. X, chaps. Ill, VII, XI, XII, XIII. 
The most thorough and scholarly treatment is in Stern, Geschichte 
Europas, vol. I, chaps. I, VI; vol. II, chaps. VIII, X, XI; vol. 
Ill, chap. X; vol. IV, chap. I. See also J. R. Hall, The Bourbon 
Restoration (1909). 

The French works Viel Castel, Histoire de la Restauration, in 20 
vols. (1860-1878), and Duvergier de Hauranne, Histoire du Gouverne- 
ment parlementaire en France, 1814-1830, 10 vols., may be consulted 
as works of reference but are much too extensive and too unscientific 
for general use. Viviani's volume in Jaures's Histoire Socialiste, vol. 
VII, La Restauration, 1814-1830, is brilliantly written, abounds in 
criticism but is marked by a total absence of references to authorities 
and is one-sided; useful, however, for the study of social and labor 
questions and conditions. 

There are a number of important monographs on aspects of this 
history: Pierre Simon's L' elaboration de la charte constitutionnelle de 
1814, 184 pp. (1906), a valuable study containing a description of the 
sources used, a narrative of the events of the two months, April and 
May, 1814, which bore upon the framing of the charter, and a critical 
study of the text — of the origin of its general principles and its 
particular provisions. Pierre Rain, L' Europe et la Restauration des 
Bourbons (1908, 493 pp.), is a scholarly investigation of the first years 
of the Restauration, 1814-1818, and an important addition to our 
knowledge of the supervision which the Allies exercised over the 
French government during the years of military occupation, 1815-1818. 
Henry Houssaye, 1815, La Seconde Abdication, La Terreur blanche, 
is a graphic and on the whole sound description of an unfortunate and 
turbulent year of transition, far superior to E. Daudet's La Terreur 
blanche. L. Michon, Le Gouvernement parlementaire sous la Restaura- 
tion (1905, 471 pp.), is a solid study, partly historical, partly juristic, 
of the introduction and establishment of the theory and practice of 
cabinet and parliamentary government in France under Louis XVIII 
and Charles X. J. Barthelemy, L'Introduction du regime parle- 
mentaire en France sous Louis XVIII et Charles X (1904, 323 pp.), 
is another valuable study of the same subject, a work crowned by the 
Faculty of Law of Paris. Thureau-Dangin, Le parti liberal sous la 
Restauration (1876), a study of the " Opposition" from 1815 to 1830, use- 
ful for an understanding of the July Revolution. On the history of 
the republican party during this period: see, G. Weill, Histoire du 
parti republicain en France de 1814 a 1870 (1900), pp. 1-32. On 
questions of church and state and the activity of the clerical party: 
see, Debidour, L'Eglise et I'Etat en France de 1780-1870, pp. 325-412, 
a valuable contribution to modern church history, readable, analytical, 
supplied with footnotes and appendices. A special topic, fully treated, 
is Les royalistes contre I'armee, 1815-1820, by Edouard Bonnal, Paris, 
(1906), 2 vols. Useful books on this and succeeding periods of French 
history are: Duguit (Leon) et Monnier (Henry), Les constitutions et 
les principales lois politiques de la France depuis 1789, based upon 



742 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

official texts and containing an analytical index (1898); Helie, F. A., 
Les constitutions de la France (1880), contains the texts of the various 
constitutions and historical notes. E. Pierre, Histoire des assemhUes 
poUtiques en France (1877), covering the years 1789 to 1831, and G. D. 
Weil, Les elections legislatives depuis 1789 (1895), are useful. Much 
information, in clear and compact form, on constitutions, electoral laws, 
liberties, finances, army, navy, education, letters, sciences, and arts, may 
be found in Rambaud, Histoire de la civilisation conteniporaine en France 
(Paris, 1888, 2 vols.); vol. II, 320-724, covers the period from 1814 to 



CHAPTER V 

Revolutions Beyond France 

Much the most scholarly and authoritative treatment of the revolu- 
tionary movements in the Netherlands, Poland, Italy, and Germany, is 
Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. IV, chaps. II-VI. The Cambridge 
Modern History, vol. X, and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire generale, 
vol. X, have sections on the subjects treated in this chapter; also 
Debidour, Llii-stoire diplomatique, vol. I, chaps. VII-IX. On Poland, 
1815-1830: consult, Schiemann, Geschichte Busslands unter Nikolaus I^ 
vol. I, chaps. V, VI; vol. II, chap. XII; also Skrine, Expansion of 
Russia, pp. 110-122. The movements in Germany are described in 
Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte, vol. IV, chap. II; in Kaufmann, 
Politische Geschichte Deutschlands, pp. 170-193; in Sybel, The Found- 
ing of the German Empire, vol. I, pp. 82-107. For events in Italy: 
consult, Thayer, Datvn of Italian Independence, vol. I, pp. 342-378. 



CHAPTER VI 
Reign of Louis Philippe 

For sources: see, Anderson, Constitutions and Documents, No. 105, 
the constitution of 1830, and No. 106, the electoral law of 1831; 
Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. II, 
No. 213, Louis Blanc's labor programme. Illustrative extracts from 
parliamentary speeches are in Pelltsson, Les orateurs poUtiques de la 
Prance de 1830 a nos jours (1898), pp. 1-208. The most extensive 
French history on the reign of Louis Philippe is that by Thureau- 
Dangin, Histoire de la monarchic de juillet, 7 vols. (1884-1892). Very 
different in interpretation and emphasis is Fourniere's Le r^gne de 
Louis Philippe (Jaures, Histoire Socialiste, vol. VIII). Hillebrand, 
Geschichte Frankreichs 1830-1S/,S, 2 vols. (1877-1879), is a work of 
value. Louis Blanc's Histoire de dix ans (1830-1840), 5 vols., is 
important for the radical movements of the time. See also. Stein, L., 
Geschichte der sociolen Beioegung in Frankreich, 3 vols. (1850). Covers 
years 1789 to 1849. An admirable treatment of the first five years 
of the reign is found in Stern, Geschichte Eiiropas, vol. IV, chaps. I 
and XII. A favorable view of the policy of Louis Philippe is giveh 
by Professor Bourgeois in Cambridge Modern History, vol. X, chap. 
XV, and vol. XI, chap II. 

On the history of the Republicans: Weill, Histoire du parti r^publi- 
cain. pp. 33-275, a careful study based upon a large number of pam- 
phlets, memoirs, and newspapers, and containing an excellent bibli- 
ography and index. I. Tchernoff, Le parti republicain sous la 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 743 

monarcliie de juUlet (1901), shows that the doctrines of the repuhlicans 
were changing under the stress of new and imperative needs and were 
not a mere repetition of revolutionary phrases. Carefully documented. 
Octave Festy's Le mouvement ouvrier au debut de la monarchie de 
juillet, 2 vols. (1908), covers the years 1830-1834, and is an important 
monograph tracing the growth of labor organizations and the develop- 
ment of the ideas and programmes of tlie working class. Debidouh, 
L'Eglise et VEtat en France, pp. 413-480, describes the relation of the 
church and state during the reign. Debidour, Etudes critiques siir la 
Revolution, etc., has essays on Louis Philippe emigre and Metternich et 
le gouvernement de juillet. A. Bardoux, Guizot (1894), is a criticism of 
Guizot as statesman, historian, political orator, critic, and publicist. 
Other biographies are J. de Crozals, Guizot; I. Tchernoff, Louis Blanc 
(1904); E. Zevort, Thiers (1892); de Mazade, Thiers, Cinquante annees 
d'histoire contemporaine (1884); and Jules Simon, Thiers, Guizot, 
Remusat (1885). 

CHAPTER VII 

Central Europe Between Two Revolutions 

For Prussia during this period there is no good history in English. 
Syuel covers these years briefly in The Founding of the German 
Empire, vol. I, pp. 82-141. The fullest treatment in German is that of 
Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte; among the important subjects treated 
are the Zollverein, vol. IV, pp. 350-406; railroads and telegraphs, 
vol. IV, pp. 581-598; accession and early reign of Frederick William IV, 
vol. V, pp. 3-60; on dissatisfaction with the reign and general con- 
fusion, vol. V, pp. 138-275; on economic conditions, vol. V, pp. 433-523; 
on the United Landtag of 1847, vol. V, pp. 591-648. Kaufmann, 
Politische Geschichte, covers this period, pp. 193-218; 273-304. On the 
Zollverein: see also, B. Rand, Economic History, chap. VIII; also W. H. 
Dawson, Protection in Germany (1904), chaps. I and II, the best 
book in English on German commercial policy, and coming down to 
the tariff of 1902. 

On Austria: see. Springer, Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener 
Frieden, Zweiter Theil, pp. 1-134; Leger, L., A History of Austro- 
Hungary from the earliest Time to the Year 1889. Translated 
by Mrs. B. Hill (1889), chaps. XXVII-XXIX; Whitman, S., 
Austria (Story of the Nations Series), chaps. XXII-XXIII. On 
Hungary: Eisenmann, L., Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois de 1867 
Etude sur le dualisme (1904), pp. 1-71, contains an excellent survey of 
the old regime in Hungary, a description of the Hungarian constitution 
and the relations of Hungary to the Austrian monarchy, and an account 
of the awakening of the new ideas and the preparation for revolution; 
a very valuable monograph, containing a bibliography of the source 
and secondary material. Florence Arnold Forster, Dedk, A Memoir, 
first published anonymously in 1880 with a preface by M. E. Grant 
Duff, is a very useful biography. On Bohemia: E. Denis, La BohSme 
depuis la Montagne-Blanche, 2 vols. (1903). Vol. II, 675 pp., constitutes 
probably the best history of Bohemia from 1815 to 1901, detailed and 
full. Pages 87-231 cover the years 1815 to 1848. Some of the subjects 
treated are the Czech renaissance, literature, science, the Metternich 
regime, the growth of the spirit of nationality, the years 1848-1849. 

For Italy: Thayer, W. R., The Dawn of Italian Independence, vol. I, 
pp. 379-453; vol. II, pp. 1-76; also the various histories cited above 
by King, Stillman, Cesaresco, Probyn. L. C. Farini, The Roman 
State from 1815-1850, translated by W. E. Gladstone, 4 vols. (1852). 



744 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Farini was a Liberal politician opposed to Clericals and Republicans, 
and generally well informed. R. M. Johnstok, The Roman Theoc- 
racy and the Republic, 1846-1849, pp. 1-112, on the election and early- 
years of the pontificate of Pius IX. Bulle, O., Die italienische Ein- 
heitsidee in ihrer literarischen Entwicklung von Parini bis Manzoni 
(Berlin, 1893). A valuable monograph on the early presentation of the 
ideal of national unity as contained in the writings of Parini and 
Alfieri, on the intellectual movement during the Revolutionary and 
Napoleonic period, mirrored in the works of Monti and Foscolo, and on 
the patriotic significance of Manzoni's productions. Important as show- 
ing the pre-Mazzinian development of the idea of unity. The best 
biography of Mazzini is that by Bolton King, Joseph Mazzini (1903). 
Pages 1-221 are devoted to a chronological account of Mazzini's life, 223- 
341 mainly to a presentation of his principal teachings. Includes a 
bibliography. Myers, F. W. H., Essays — Modern; contains an excellent 
study of Mazzini's life. Some of the works of Mazzini have been trans- 
lated into English and published in six volumes under the title. Life and 
Writings of Joseph Mazzini (1890-1891). A small collection of Essays by 
Joseph Mazzini has been made by Thomas Okey (1894). There is now 
being published in Italy a complete collection of Mazzini's writings, 
Scritti editi ed inediti di Giuseppe Mazzini. This will probably number 
sixty volumes when completed, will include the vast correspondence of 
Mazzini, and will inevitably constitute the most important source for 
the history of Italy during the awakening. There is an interesting 
essay on Mazzini in W. R. Thayer's Italica (1908), and brief popular 
sketches may be found in J. A. R. Marriott's Makers of Modern Italy, 
and in R. S. Holland's Builders of United Italy (1908), 



CHAPTER VIII 
Central Europe in Revolt 

Excellent general accounts of the revolutions of 1848-1849 are to 
be found in Fyffe, History of Modern Europe, single volume edition, 
pp. 707-804, three volume edition, vol. Ill, pp. 1-148; and in Andrews, 
Historical Development of Modern Europe, vol. I, chaps. IX and X. 
Matjuice, C. E., The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-1849, in Italy, 
Austria-Hungary , and Germany, with some Examination of the Previous 
Thirty-three Years (1887), contains a great amount of information, 
poorly presented; also contains a bibliography. 

For Austria, the chief authorities are Friedjung, H., Oesterreich von 
1848 bis 1860. Vol. I covers the period from 1848 to 1851 (1908); 
Springer, Geschichte Oesterreichs, Zweiter Theil, pp. 135-774; Helfert, 
J. A., Geschichte Oesterreichs seit 1848. For Hungary, the most im- 
portant treatment is Eisenmann, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois, pp. 75- 
148. Consult, also Arnold Forster, Dedk, A Memoir, pp. 72-112. 
Kossuth's Speeches in America, explaining and defending the Hungarian 
movement, were edited by F. W. Newman and published in New York in 
1854. For Bohemia: Denis, La Boheme depuis la Montagne-Blanche 
(1903), vol. II, pp. 235-381. 

For Germany: see, Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, 
vol. I, pp. 145-492; vol. II, pp. 3-82; Kaufmann, Politische Geschichte 
Deutschlands, chap. V; Matter, P., La Prusse et la Revolution 
de 1848 (1903). The best account of the German revolution is in Hans 
Blum's Die deutsche Revolution, 1848-49 (1897). A sketch of the 
attempts to achieve unity before 1848, followed by an account of the 
revolutionary movements in the several states and of the work of the 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 745 

Frankfort Parliament. Bismarck's opinions on the revolutionary events 
are in his RefJcctlons and Reminiscences, vol. I, chaps. II and III. Vol. 
I of the Reminiscences of Carl Schurz (1907), a revolutionist and 
refugee, are exceedingly interesting on these years. 

For Italy, by far the best account in English is Thayer, Dawn of 
Italian Independence, vol. II, pp. 77-415. On the French expedition 
against the Roman Republic: see. Bourgeois et Clermont, Rome et Na- 
poleon III; also the recent scholarly and very graphic book of G. M. 
Trevelyan on Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic (1907). Chap- 
ters I, II, and III give an admirable account of Garibaldi's previous 
career, and chaps. XII-XVII a description of his famous retreat. An 
excellent bibliography is appended. Garibaldi's own account is contained 
in his Autobiography, translated by A. Werner, vol. II, pp. 1-51. On 
Mazzini's connection with the Republic: see, Bolton King's Life of Maz- 
zini, chap. VII. R. M. Johnston, Roman Theocracy, pp. 113-315, may 
also be consulted on the years 1848-1849. 



CHAPTER IX 

The Second Republic and the Founding of the Second Empire 

The Constitution of 1848 may be found in Anderson, Constitutions 
and Documents, No. 110. There are clear accounts of the Second Re- 
public, by Bourgeois, in Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, chap. V, 
and by Seignobos in Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire gen6rale, vol. XI, 
chap. I. General histories are: Pierre, V., Histoire de la republique de 
1848, 2 vols. (1873-1878), anti-Bonapartist; Gorce, Histoire de la 
deuxi^me republique, 2 vols. (1887), written from the standpoint of sym- 
pathy with a liberal monarchy, critical of the republic, and merciless 
toward socialists and socialistic theories. An admirable counterweight to 
this is Georges Renard's La republique de 1848 (1848-1852), vol. IX of 
Histoire Socialiste. Part I, pp. 1-227, is devoted to the political history, 
Part II, pp. 227-384, to the economic and social evolution. Important 
for the period are: Debidour, L'Eglise et I'Etat en France, pp. 481-523 
on the expedition to Rome and the Falloux law concerning education; 
Bourgeois et Clermont, Rome et Napoleon III, a study in diplomacy, 
based upon unpublished oflBcial documents as well as upon published 
material, and showing that the Roman expedition of 1849 prepared the 
Empire by forming a close alliance between Louis Napoleon, the clergy, 
and the army; Quentin-Bauchart, P., Lamartine, homme politique, 
2 vols. (1903-1908). Excellent recent studies are: Ferdinand Dreyfus, 
L'assistance sous la deuxieme republique (1907), 220 pp., a treatment of 
the question of poverty and an account of the various measures of social 
reform passed at this time; Weill, G., Histoire du parti ripublicain en 
France, chaps. IX and X; I. Tchernoff, Associations et sociM^s secrdies 
sous la deuxieme republique, 1848-1851 (1905), 396 pp., a treatise based 
upon much unpublished material in the archives of the ministries of 
justice and the interior; aims to show that the coup d'etat was prepared 
by the previous systematic destruction of republican organizations; a 
collection of valuable documents; I. Tchernoff, Le parti republicain au 
Coup d'Etat et sous le Second Empire (1906), 676 pp., richly docu- 
mented, shows that the coup d'etat was far from being received by the 
laboring classes with amiable ^indifference; I. Tchernoff, Louis Blanc, 
1904; Tenot, E., The Coup d'Etat; TiimmA,Napoleon III avant I'Empire, 
2 vols., is an apology for the Prince President, diffuse, useful as show- 
ing the state of public opinion, as the author has industriously ran- 
sacked English and French newspaper files; Ciieetham, F. H., Louis 



746 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Napoleon and the Genesis of the Second Republic; being a Life of the 
Emperor Napoleon III to the Time of His Election to the Presidency 
of the French Republic (1909), is a popular, readable narrative, but 
adds nothing to our knowledge; Jerrold, The Life of Napoleon III, De- 
rived from State Records, from Unpublished Family Correspondence, 
and from Personal Testimony, 4 vols. (1871-1874), is sympathetic and 
full; Forbes, A., Life of Napoleon III, is popular, superficial, untrust- 
worthy; H. A. L. Fisher, Bonapartism, Six Lectures Delivered in the 
University of London (1908), is popular and brilliantly written, at- 
tempts to show the essential unity of the two Napoleonic regimes, more 
interesting and suggestive than convincing; Pellissok, Les orateurs 
politiques, pp. 209-277, contains interesting extracts from parliamentary 
speeches. 

For the Second Empire, the leading secondary authority is Gorce, 
Histoire du Second Empire, 7 vols. (1894-1905), the fullest and ablest 
history we have of the period from 1850 to 1871, very important, not 
only for the history of France, but of Italy and Germany also. Presents 
a wealth of information with great ludicity, admirable impartiality, and 
largeness of view. An indispensable work. Vols. I, pp. 1-131, and II, 
pp. 1-129, cover the field of this chapter. Taxile Delord, Histoire du 
Second Empire, 6 vols. (1869-1875), an older work, based on careful 
research, strongly opposed to the Empire. Albert Thomas, Le Second 
Empire (Histoire Socialiste, vol. X), very instructive; see chaps. I and II. 
There is no satisfactory account of the Second Empire in English. 
Chapters I and IV in vol. II of Andrews, Historical Development of 
Modern Europe, are clear and well-balanced, but necessarily restricted. 
See, also, Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, chap. X. For the history 
of the relations of church and state: see, Debidour, U^glise et I'Etat 
en France, pp. 534-550; for history of the republican party: Weill, 
Histoire du parti rejmblicain, chaps. XI-XIII; I. Tchernoff, Le parti 
republicain au Coup d'Etat et sous le Second Empire; for description of 
the political system of the autocratic Empire: see, Berton, L'evolution 
constitutionelle du Second Empire. Part I treats of the despotic em- 
pire and the constitution of 1852. A very important monograph. For 
labor and social questions and movements: Weill, G., Histoire du 
mouvement social en France, 1852-1902 (1905), chaps. I-III. 



CHAPTER X 

Cavour and the Creation: of the Kingdom of Italy 

The general histories of Italy on this period are: Kino, A History of 
Italian Unity, 2 vols., the most extensive and informing history in 
English, thoroughly documented. Vol. I, pp. 353-416, and all of vol. II 
concern the period of this chapter; Cesaresco, The Liberation of Italy, 
pp. 165-415, written with much charm, sympathy, and understanding, 
but without scientific apparatus; Stillman, The Union of Italy, pp. 242- 
325; Probyn, Italy 1815-1890, pp. 159-242. There is an excellent chap- 
ter in Walpole's History of Twenty-five Years, vol. I, pp. 206-308. 
Much the best account of Napoleon Ill's Italian policy and of the war 
of 1859 is in Gorge, Histoire du Second Empire, vol. II, pp. 211-449, 
and vol. Ill, pp. 1-123; and on the annexations. Ibid. vol. Ill, pp. 125- 
212, a treatment marked by admirable lucidity, keenness of analysis, 
solidity of judgment, and sustained interest of narration. For Cavour: 
see, Cesaresco, Cavour (1898), a brief biography of unusual merits, 
well-informed, just to the other figures of the time as well as to 
Cavour, epigrammatic, full of color and life. Countess Cesaresco traces 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 747 

the shifting diplomacy of the period with precision and comprehension. 
Her chapters on the internal reforms in Piedmont and her revelation 
of Cavour's activity between the interview of Plombieres and April 1859 
are admirable. William de la Rive, Le Comte de Cavour, R4cits et 
Souvenirs (Paris, 1862), an intimate portrait by a close personal friend. 
This has been translated into English by Edward Romilly (London, 
1862), but the French edition is preferable. D. Berti, II Conte di Cavour 
avanti il IS-'/S (1886), important. Villari in his Studies, Critical and 
Historical (London, 1907), has a chapter on the youth of Cavour 
(pp. 119-141). D. Zanichelli, Cavour (1905), a solid study by a 
professor in the University of Pisa. N. Bianchi, La jyolitique du 
Comte Camille de Cavour de 1S52 a 1861, Lettres inSdites, 419 pp. 
(1885), is an important collection of over two hundred letters of Cavour 
to Marquis Emmanuel d'Azeglio, the ambassador of Piedmont to Eng- 
land during the period. Treitschke, Cavour, in vol. Ill of his His- 
torische und Politische Aufsdtze. a study first published in 1869, and 
Kraus, F. X., Cavour, Die Erhebung Italiens im Neunzehnten Jahr- 
hundert, with bibliography and illustrations (1902), may also be con- 
sulted; see, also, Mazade, Le Comte de Cavour (1877). The parlia- 
mentary speeches of Cavour have been published in 12 vols., Discorsi 
parlementari (1863-1874), and Chiala, L., has edited his correspondence, 
Lettere edite ed inedite di Camilla Cavour, 2nd edit. (1883-1887), 
10 vols. Chiala's extensive introductions and notes in these volumes are 
of great value. See, also, Bert, A., Nouvelles lettres inedites de 
Cavour (1889). Brief essays on Cavour are found in Marriott's 
Makers of Modern Italy, and in Holland's Builders of United Italy 
Lord Actox has a suggestive essay on Cavour, first published in 1861 
and reprinted in 1907, in his Historical Essays and Studies, chap. VI 
W. R. Thaitsr compares Cavour and Bismarck in the Atlantic Monthly 
March 1909; same article Fortnightly Review, March and April 1909 
Nigra, Cavour and Madame de Circotirt (1894), contains some un- 
published letters from the years 1836-1860. Cadogan's Life of Cavour is 
worthless. 

On Garibaldi the most recent work is G. M. Tre\-elyax, Garibaldi 
and the Thousand (1909), an account of the Sicilian expedition. 
Another volume is announced by the same author to cover the conquest 
of the mainland. These, with the work already cited by the same 
author on Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, will constitute the 
most scholarly account, in English, of Garibaldi's career. Their literary 
merit is high. Each volume contains a critical bibliography. W. R. 
Thayer's Throne Makers (1899), has a spirited essay on Garibaldi. H. R. 
Whitehouse, Collapse of the Kingdom of Naples (1899), gives a brief 
survey of affairs in Naples down to 1848, describes the reaction of the 
years 1850-1859, and then the catastrophe of 1860; an excellent book. 

On the Papacy: see, R. de Cesare, The Last Days of Papal Rome (1850- 
1870), translated by Helen Zimmern, with an introduction by G. M. 
Trevelyan (Boston, 1909). The Birth of Modern Italy (1909) con- 
sists of the posthumous papers of Jessie White Mario, edited by the 
Duke Litta-Visconti-Arese ; interesting for the careers of Mazzini and 
Garibaldi whose friend Madame Mario was; unjust toward Cavour; full 
of the emotion of the Risorgimento — at least of the republican agitation. 
Della Rocca, The Autobiography of a Veteran (1898), is an inter- 
esting narrative by an important participant in events from 1848 to 
1870. 

The most elaborate Italian histories of the Risorgimento are: 
Tivaroni, C, Storia critica del risorgimento d'ltalia (Turin, 1888-1897), 
9 vols.; and, Bersezio, V., // regno di Vittorio Emanuele II; Trent' anni 
di vita italiana (Turin, 1878-1895), 8 vols. 



748 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

CHAPTER XI 
Bismarck and German Unity 

There is no satisfactory work in English on the founding of the 
German Empire. Headlam's long-promised work in the Cambridge 
Historical Series has not yet appeared. Malxeson's The Refounding of 
the German Empire 184S-1871 (1893) is brief and concerned chiefly 
with military events. The articles in the Cambridge Modern History are 
unsatisfactory. Walpole, History of Twenty-Five Years, vol. II, chaps. 
X and XIII, is straightforward, informing, concerned mainly with 
diplomacy. Sybel's The Pounding of the German Empire by William I, 
7 vols. (1890-1898), is a monumental work, based chiefly upon Prussian 
state documents, to which he alone was allowed access by Bismarck. 
While a work of remarkable industry and erudition, it is a thorough- 
going defense and panegyric of the conduct of the Prussian Govern- 
ment. Moreover, in many important matters it is not subject to 
efi'ective control. Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst's Deutsche Geschichte von der 
Auflosung des alten bis zur Errichtung des neuen Kaiserreichs, 1S06~ 
1871, 3 vols. (1905), is characterized by much the same partisanship, 
as is also Ottokar Lorekz's Kaiser Wilhelm und die Begriindung des 
Beichs, 1866-1871 (Jena, 1902). On the other hand, the German 
scholarship, which commands greater respect abroad as more critical 
and objective, is that of Marcks, Lenz, Delbriick, Meinecke, who are 
adhering to the Ranke traditions of historical writing. H. Friedjung's 
Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutschland, is by an Austrian 
scholar and covers the years 1859-1866, 2 vols. (1898). It is the most 
important treatment we have of the relations of Prussia and Austria 
on the critical years before 1866. Contains also an excellent account of 
the Austro-Prussian war. The work is already in its seventh edition. 
One of the most brilliant and suggestive books on this period is by E. 
Denis, La fondation de I'empire allemand (1906), a study covering 
the 3'ears 1850 to 1870, limited to a single series of facts, those which 
prepared and which explain the foundation of the German Empire. 
Large space is given to the evolution of ideas and to the economic 
transformation. The book is marked by profound and wide investiga- 
tion, by penetration and subtlety of characterization, by an admirable 
impartiality. It contains no references, footnotes, or bibliography. 

The literature on Bismarck is very extensive and is constantly expand- 
ing. His speeches have been published by Kohl, Die politischen Reden 
des Fursten Bismarck, 14 vols. (1892-1905). There is an excellent 
selection in two small volumes, sold cheaply, entitled. Otto von Bis- 
marck, Setzen wir Deutschland in den Battel, Reden aus der grossen 
Zeit, edited by Eugen Kalkschmidt (1907). A smaller collection is that 
of Otto Lyon, Bismarcks Reden und Briefe (Leipsic, 1895). Professor 
Hermann Schoenfeld has published a collection entitled Bismarck's 
Speeches and Letters (in German, 1905). The Correspondence of 
William I and Bismarck, with Other Letters from and to Prince Bis- 
marck, translated by J. A. Ford, 2 vols. (1903), consists of about five 
hundred letters, selected by Bismarck himself, to show his relationship 
to the Emperor and also to authenticate and supplement his Remi- 
niscences in certain respects. Prince Bismarck's Letters to His Wife, 
His Sister and Others, from 18-'i't to 1870, translated by F. Maxse (New 
York, 1878), are vivacious and entertaining. 

Bismarck's Reflections and Re^niniscences, 2 vols. (1899), are im- 
portant but must be used with caution. For criticism of them, see, 
Erich Marcks, Fiirst Bismarcks Gedanken und Erinnerungen. Versuck 
einer kritischen Wiirdigung (1899); also Max Lenz, Zur Kritik der 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 749 

Oedanken und Erinnerimgen des Fursten Bismarck (1899) ; Feieduich 
Meikecke, Historische Zeitschrift, Band 83, pp. 282-295; Sorel, Etudes 
de literature et d'histoire (1901). On the new Bismarck historiography 
(writings of Busch, Blume, Bamberger, etc.), see, Hans DelbrIjck, 
Preussische Jahrbucher, Band 96, pp. 461-480 (June, 1899). There are 
many biographies of Bismarck. The best in English is that by Headlam, 
J. W., well informed and judicial. Munroe Smith, Bismarck and Ger- 
man Unity (1898), is a clear epitome, with a slight bibliography. In 
French, P. Matter, Bismarck et son temps, 3 vols. (1905-1908), full, 
critical, remarkably impartial, and very readable. In German, Max 
Lenz, Geschichte Bismarcks (1902), compact and critical; Erich 
Marcks, Bismarck, Eine Biographic. One volume has just appeared 
(1909), entitled Bismarcks Jugend, 1815-184S. One may hazard the con- 
jecture that this, when completed, will be the most satisfactory 
biography in German. Ed. Heyck, Bismarck in Monographien zur 
Weltgeschichte, is interestingly illustrated. Erich Marcks' Kaiser 
Wilhelm I (5th edition, 1905) is admirable in knowledge, criticism, and 
temper, an indispensable book both by reason of its presentation and 
interpretation of the Emperor's career and his relations to others, 
especially to Bismarck, and also because of its critical bibliography. 

A clear account of the Danish and Austro-Prussian wars may be 
found in Murdock, TJw Reconstruction of Europe (1894), chaps. XV- 
XXI. Hozier, H. M., Seven Weeks' War, is readable, founded on letters 
written from Bohemia to the London Times, well supplied with maps 
and plans. Sybel's account of the war of 1866 is in vol. V, The Found- 
ing of the German Empire. See, also, Friedjung, Der Kampf um die 
Vorherrschaft, vols. I-II, and Gorce. Histoire du Second Empire, vol. 
IV, pp. 522-631; vol. V, pp. 1-80. 



CHAPTER XII 

The Transformation or the Second Empire 

The most valuable account of the transformation of the Second 
Empire between 1860 and 1870 is in Gorge, Histoire du Second Empire, 
vol. Ill, livre XXII, and vols. IV and V. Berton, H., L'Svolution con- 
stitutionelle du Second Empire (1900), parts two and three, is also full 
and trustworthy; an important monograph by a French lawyer. For 
the growth of the republican party: Weill, Histoire du parti repu- 
blicain, chaps. XII-XV; Tcherxoff, Le parti r^'publicain au Coup d'E tat 
et sous le Second Empire. For labor movements: Weill, Histoire du 
mouvement social, chaps. III-VI; for relations with the church: Debidoue, 
L'Eglise et VEtat en France, pp. 551-627. 

CHAPTER XIII 

The Franco-German War 

Palat, Bibliographie generate de la guerre de 1810-1871 (1896), is 
indispensable for any detailed study of this period. There is a good 
account of the causes of the war in Rose, Development of European 
Nations, vol. I, chap. I ; also in Walpole, History of Twenty-five 
Years, vol. II, chap. VIII; Headlam, Bismarck, chap. XIII. Vols. VI 
and VII of Sybel's Founding of the German Empire contain an 
elaborate account of the events and diplomacy of the period; pronounced 
special pleading. These volumes have not the value of the earlier ones, 



750 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

as Bismarck did not allaw the author access to the Prussian archives 
for the period after 1867. The seventh volume was composed under 
the inspiration of Bismarck himself, and is based on information largely 
furnished by him. Delbriick says it is " not history but diplomacy — and 
calculated to inspire laughter at that." (Delbrijck, Das Geheimniss der 
Napoleonischeti Politik, p. 34). Bismarck's description is in his Reflec- 
tions and Reminiscences, chaps. XX-XXIII. Far the most judicial, as 
well as most interesting account of the causes of the war and of the war 
itself (down to Sedan) is in Gorge's Histoire du Second Empire, vols. 
VI and VII, volumes of absorbing interest, clear, vivid, admirably ar- 
ranged, and written with scrupulous fairness. Two hundred pages of 
vol. VI are given to the HohenzoUern candidacy. An earlier but very 
able study is Sorel, A., Histoire diplomatique de la guerre franco- 
allemande, 2 vols. (1875). Ollivier's L'Empire liberal, 14 vols., in course 
of publication (1895 — ), is an elaborate account of the Empire by 
one who was badly compromised by the war. On the bearing upon 
the fall of the Empire of Napoleon's relations to the Pope: 
Bourgeois et Clermont, Rome et Napoleon III, is important. The 
authors thesis is that Napoleon's refusal to withdraw his troops 
from Rome occasioned the failure of the projected triple alliance with 
Italy and Austria, and that that^ was the cause of the subsequent 
disasters. See, also, Debidour, L'Eglise et VEtat en France, pp. 551- 
627. Debidour's account of the diplomacy of the period is found 
in his Histoire diplomatique, vol. II, chaps. VII-X. The numer- 
ous biographies of Bismarck, cited above, should be consulted; also 
Marcks, Kaiser Wilhelm I. Lord Acton has a study of the causes 
of the Franco-Prussian war in his Historical Essays and Studies (1907), 
chap. VII. 

Of the war itself there is a good account in Rose, Development of 
the European Nations, vol. I, chaps. II, III, and IV; also in Murdock, 
Reconstruction of Europe, chaps. XXIII-XXX. Gen. J. F. Maurice, 
The Franco-German War, is a translation of a German work, edited by 
Pflugk-Hartung, entitled Krieg und Sieg (1896); Col. L. Hale's The 
People's War in France (1904) is founded on Honig, Der Volkskrieg an 
der Loire, and describes the latter part of the war, after Sedan. 
MoLTKE, The Franco-German War is important but technical. Chuouet, 
La guerre de 1810-1811 (1895), is an excellent account in a single 
volume. The extensive histories by the German General Staff and by 
Lehautcourt are too detailed and technical for general use. Probably 
the best account for the general reader is Gorce, Histoire du Second 
Empire, vol. VI, pp. 321-434, and VII throughout (comes down to 
September 4, 1870). E. B. Washburne, Recollections of a Minister to 
France, 2 vols. (1887), a very interesting and important book by the 
United States Minister to France, the only foreign minister who re- 
mained at his post in Paris throughout the Franco-German war, and 
whose firm conduct won the praise of William I, Bismarck, Gambetta, 
and Thiers. There was published by the Government Printing Office, 
1878, Senate Executive Document No. 24, a book of 222 pages entitled 
Franco-German War and the Insurrection of the Commune. Corre- 
spondence of E. B. Washburne. This includes the correspondence of 
Washburne with the State Department in Washington in relation to 
the war, together with correspondence with Bismarck, Bancroft, United 
States Minister to Berlin, and Motley, United States Minister to London. 
The letters cover the period from July 19, 1870, to June 29, 1871. 
Interesting volumes are Busch, Bismarck in the Franco-German War; A. 
Forbes, Ml/ Experiences in the War Between France and Germany (1872) ; 
W. H. Russell, My Diary During the Last Great War (1874) ; Bis- 
marck's Letters to His Wife from the Seat of War (1810-1811), trans- 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 751 

lated by A. Harder (1903) ; Diaries of Emperor Frederick, During the 
Campaigns of 1S66 and 1S70-1S71, translated by F. A. Welby (1902); 
Henry Labouchere, Diary of the Besieged Resident in Paris (1871); 
Sir Edwin Arnold, Inside Paris During the Siege (1871); Jules 
Claretie, Paris assiege; F. Sarcey, Le si^ge de Paris. This attained its 
thirtieth edition within its first year. See, Thiers, Notes et Souvenirs, on 
the years 1870-1873 (1903), for an account of Thiers' attempts to 
secure the intervention of foreign powers. 

CHAPTER XIV 
The German Empire 

There is in English no general history of Germany since 1871. The 
treatment in Andrews, Contemporary Europe, Asia and Africa, is 
excellent. That in Rose, Development of European Nations, vol. I, chap. 
VI; and vol. II, chap. I, is slight; that in Headlam, Bismarck, pp. 377- 
463, good. Lowell, A. L., Governments and Parties in Continental 
Europe, vol. II, chap. VII, gives a clear outline of party history from 
1871 to 1894. The most extensive account is H. Blum, Das deutsche 
Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks, covering the years 1871-1890 (1893), a book 
largely inspired by Bismarck himself. Oncken's Das Zeitalter des 
Kaisers Wilhelm I, vol. II, pp. 3(i9-7d8, 953-1005, comes down to 1888. 
BuLLE, Geschichte der Jahre 1S71-1S77, is useful. Kaufmann, Politische 
Geschichte Deutschlands, covers the period from 1870-1888 very poorly. 
Probably the most useful and readable account is in Matter, Bismarck 
et son temps, vol. Ill, a book based on wide and careful investigation, 
impartial in tone, an interesting narrative. The writings of Marcks and 
Lenz, cited above, should be used. Bismarck's Reflections and 
Reminiscences, vol. II, chaps. XXIV-XXXIII, concern the period 1871- 
1888. The Memoirs of Prince Chlodwig of Hohenlohe-S chilling sf tier st, 
2 vols. (1906), are of importance. Hohenlohe was head of the Bavarian 
ministry 1866-1870, German ambassador to Paris 1874-1885, and Chancel- 
lor of the Empire 1894-1900. The Memoirs throw light upon the relations 
between the South German States and the North German Confederation, 
upon the conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, and upon French 
politics from 1874 to 1885. Of slight importance for the period after 
1890. 

On the Kulturkampf: Hahn, Geschichte des Kulturkampfes ; on 
Social Democracy: E. Milhaud, La Democratic socialiste allemande 
(1803); KiRKUP, History of Socialism (1906), chaps. V, VII, IX 
(contains Erfurt programme in full, pp. 233-329); Werner Sombart, 
Socialism (1898); A. Schaeffle, The Quintessence of Socialism; W. H. 
Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism (1891); on protection: 
W. H. Dawson, Protection in Germany, A History of German 
Fiscal Policy During the Nineteenth Century (1904), the best book 
in English on the subject, coming down to the tariff of 1903; on state 
insurance: F. W. Lewis, State Insurance, chap. IV (Boston, 1909); also, 
J. G. Brooks, Compulsory Insurance in Germany; Ludwig Lass, German 
Workmen's Insurance; on government: B. E. Howard, The German 
Empire (1906), an exhaustive account of the structure of the imperial 
government, not a description of the manner in which it works, a jurid- 
ical rather than an historical study; Lowell, Governments and Parties, 
chaps. V, VI, VII, an account of both structure and operation of im- 
perial and state governments; Combes de Lestuade, Les monarchies de 
I'empire allemand, organisation constitutionelle et administrative (1904); 
probably the best, most complete account of German governments, im- 
perial and state; describes the powers and functions of sovereigns, 



752 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

chambers, ministers, communes, financial and judicial systems, etc.; 
Charles Borgeaud, The Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in 
Europe and America, translated by C. D. Hazen (1895), pp. 47-78. 
Kloeppel, p., Dreissig Jahre deutscher Verfassungsgeschichte, 1861-1891 ; 
vol. I (1900) covers period to 1877; Laband, P., Das Staatsrecht des 
deutschen Retches, 4 vols. (4th edit., 1901), a very important work on 
German public law. Has been translated into French. The most in- 
forming book on present day Germany is W. H. Dawson's The Evolution 
of Modern Oermany (1908), a book that aims to trace the economic and 
social transformation of Germany, her industrial and colonial expansion, 
the growth of socialism, etc. See, also, E. D. Howard, The Recent Indus- 
trial Progress of Oermany (1907); "Veritas," The German Empire of 
To-day (1902); Eltzbacher, O. (or J. Ellis Barker), Modern Germany, 
Her Political and Economic Problems (1905). 



CHAPTER XV 
The Third Republic 

There is no satisfactory history of the Third Republic in English, 
Lowell, Governments and Parties, chap. II, has a clear outline of party 
history down to 1896. Coubertin, Evolution of the Third Republic, is 
not always clear, presupposes some knowledge of the subject, contains 
chapters on education, the army, literature, socialism; is poorly 
translated. F. Lawton, The Third French Republic (1909), covers in a 
superficial way the years 1871-1906, and has entertaining chapters on 
literature, science, art, education, the parliamentary system. W. G. 
Berry, France since Waterloo (1909), devotes pages 249-368 to the 
years 1871-1908. A work of great importance, detailed, authoritative, 
and brilliantly written is Hanotaux, Contemporary France, 4 vols. (1903- 
1909), covering the years 1871-1882, a full narrative, abounding in vivid 
and instructive accounts of men and events. Zevort, E., Histoire de la 
Troisi^me Republique, 4 vols. (1896-1901), covers the years 1870-1894, a 
useful narrative, full of detail, fair, careful, pleasantly written. 
Labusquiere, La Troisieme Republique, 1811-1900, is vol. XII of 
Jaures, Histoire Socialiste. F. T. Marzials, Life of Leon Gambetta in 
the Statesmen Series (London, 1890), is a brief account. Charles de 
Mazade, Monsieur Thiers, Cinquante anuses d'histoire contemporaine 
(1884), is an interesting book. More important is the life of Jules Ferry 
by Alfred Rambaud (Paris, 1903), a biography of a forceful and far- 
sighted statesman, a founder of the Republic, written by a trained his- 
torian. See, also, Henry Leyret, Waldeck-Roussecm et la Troisieme 
Republique, 1869-1899. 

On protection: see, H. O. Meredith, Protection in France; on labor 
and social movements: G. Weill, Histoire du mouvement social en 
France, 1852-1902 (1905), pp. 133-472, with bibliography; on diplomatic 
history: Hippeau, Histoire diplomatique de la Troisieme Republique 
(1888); A. Tardieu, France and the Alliances (1908); Billot, M. A., 
La France et I'ltalie, Histoire des annees troubles (1905); the author 
was French ambassador in Rome, and treats of the period between 1881 
and 1899 — useful for French history, also for Italian; on colonial ex- 
pansion: Levasseur, La France et ses colonies, 3 vols. (1889); L. Vignok, 
L' expansion de la France (1891), and by the same author, Les colonies 
francaises, leur commerce, leur situation economique, leur utilite pour 
la rnetropole, leur avenir (1886), containing a description of the dif- 
ferent French colonies; Dubois et Terrier, Les colonies francaises: 
un sidcle d'expansion coloniale, 1800-1900 (1902) ; on the Dreyfus case; 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 753 

Reinach, J., L' affaire Dreyfus, 5 vols. 1901-1903; also by Dreyfus him- 
self, Five Years of My Life (1901); Steevens, The Tragedy of Dreyfus 
(1899). 

On state and church: Arthttr Galton, Church and State in France, 
1300-1907, pp. 201-268. Of the first importance is Debidouk, A., 
L'Eglise Catholiqiie et L'Etat sous la Troisienr.-' Republique, 1S70-1906, 
3 vols. (Paris, 1906-1909). Vol. I covers the period 1870-1889; vol. II, 
1889-1906; the fullest account concerning the separation of Church and 
State to be found is in vol. II, pp. 231-498; excellent bibliographies; many 
important documents, including the law of April 13, 1908, modifying 
certain articles of the law of December 9, 1905. See, also, Briand, A., 
La Separation des Eylises et de I'Etat. Rapport fait an nom de la 
Commission de la Chambre des Deputes, suivies des pieces annexes 
(1905). On the government of France, the best description in English 
is Lowell's Governments and Parties, chaps. I and II. This is far 
superior to Bodley, J. S. C, France, 2 vols. (1898), a pretentious book 
which, with much information, is dominated by the melancholy thesis 
that parliamentary government is unsuccessful in France, because it 
is not the same as parliamentary government in England. The book 
contains many other preconceptions, more entertaining than important. 
Leboi^ and Pelet, France as It Is (1888), is a useful book. Geokge, W. 
L., France in the Twentieth Century (1909), contains chapters on the politi- 
cal institutions, relations of church and state, socialism, trades-unionism, 
colonies, education, etc., of France of the present day. A penetrating 
analysis of the French mind and character and description of French 
conditions is W. C. Brownell's French Traits, an Essay in Comparative 
Criticism (1889). Useful collections of the constitutions of France are: 
DuGuiT et Monnier, Les constitutions et les principales lois politiques de 
la France depuis 17S9 (2nd edit., 1908) ; Helie, F. A., Les constitutions 
de la France (1880). Professor F. M. Anderson has rendered an im- 
portant service to students by translating many of the important 
documents in the history of nineteenth century France in his Con- 
stitutions and Documents (2nd edit., revised and enlarged, 1909). 
Pellisson, Les orateurs politiques de la France de 1830 a nos jours, 
pp. 381-434; contains extracts illustrating the history of the Third 
Republic from 1871 to 1889. 



CHAPTER XVI 
The Kingdom of Italy 

The literature on this period of Italian history is not extensive. 
Stillman's history may be used; pages 358 to 393 cover the years 1871 
to 1886. Lowell's account of party history down to 1896 is clear and 
his description of the political institutions adequate. Governments and 
Parties, vol. I, chaps. Ill and IV. Stillman's Francesco Crispi (1899) 
and Justin McCarthy's Pope Leo XIII (1896) are useful biographies. 
A. Billot, La France et Vltalie, 1881-1S99, 2 vols. (1905), a book by a 
former French ambassador to Italy. For present conditions in Italy: 
see, King and Okey, Italy To-day (2nd edit., 1909) ; W. R. Thayer, 
Italica (1908), containing an essay on "Thirty Years of Italian 
Progress," and one on "Italy in 1907"; Ed. Driault, Les problemes 
politiques et sociaux a la fin du XIX^ si^cle (1900), chap. II, La ques- 
tion romaine: le pape, le roi, le peuple. 

The Encyclopedia Americana contains more than thirty articles, mostly 
by Italian specialists, on various Italian institutions and conditions. 



754 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

CHAPTER XVII 

Austria-Hungary Since 1849 

On Austria and Hungary, there is very little that is important in 
English. Leger, L., History of Austro-Hungary (1889), chaps. XXXIII- 
XXXVIII, is probably the most satisfactory treatment. Whitman, S., 
Austria (Story of the Nations Series), gives a brief account of the 
period from 1815 to 1898, pp. 308-381. Cambridge Modern History, vol. 
XI, chap. XV, contains an account of the reaction and reorganization in 
Austria, Prussia, and the German Confederation, by Professor Fried- 
JUNG, of the University of Vienna. Consult, also. Ibid. chap. XVI. 
Seignobos has useful chapters. Vambery, A., The Story of Hungary 
(The Story of the Nations Series, 1886), pp. 400-440. Florence 
Arnold Forster, Francis Dedk, A Memoir, first published anonymously 
(1880), is important for the period 1840 to 1876. Sir Horace Rum- 
bold's Francis Joseph and His Times (1909) is an interesting and vivid 
account of this reign. The author was long British ambassador at 
Vienna. His book is useful, though frequently superficial and biased. 
Rumbold has, however, made much use of the solid works of Friedjung. 

The most important work on Austria after 1848 is H. Friedjung, 
Oesterreich von 1848 bis 1860, of which vol. I, Die Jahre der Revolution 
mid der Reform, 1848-1851, has appeared (3rd edit., Stuttgart, 1908). 
L, Eisenmann, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois, is very valuable: on 
the period of reaction, 1849-1859, see pp. 149-203; on the various at- 
tempts at constitution-making, the struggle over the unitary and federal 
principles, see 76 ic?., pp. 207-399. See, also, DedA-. ^ Memoir, passim ; A. de 
Bertha, La Hongrie moderne, de 1849 a 1901 (Paris, 1901), a book 
by a native of Hungary, laudatory of men and things Hungarian, yet 
well-informed and useful. Chap. I describes Hungary under Austrian 
absolutism, 1849-1859; chap. II, Hungary under the provisional schemes, 
1859-1865. H. Friedjung, Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutsch- 
land, is invaluable for the period 1859-1866. On the making of the 
Ausgleich, 1865-1867: see, Eisenmann, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois, 
pp. 403-657; Forster, Dedk, A Memoir, pp. 113-322; Bertha, La Hongrie 
moderne, chap. Ill, pp. 83-160; see, also. Bertha, La constitution 
hongroise (Paris, 1898), a good outline and description containing chap- 
ters on the laws of 1848, on the attempts at centralization, on dualism, on 
Croatia, the nationalities, development from 1867-1897; see, also, M. G. 
Horn, Le compromis de 1868 entre la Hongrie et laCroatie (Paris, 1907). 
Bertha also has a book on Franqois Joseph I et son rbgne, 1848-1888 
(Paris, 1888). See, also, Beust, Aus drei Viertel-Jahrhunderten, vols. 
I and II (Stuttgart, 1887). On the working of the Ausgleich; Eisen- 
mann, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois, pp. 659-680; on history of 
Hungary, 1867-1901: Bertha, La Hongrie moderne, pp. 161-358. A 
clear and instructive account of party history in Austria-Hungary from 
1867 to 1896, and a description of the political institutions of each 
country, and of the Dual Monarchy, is given by Lowell in Governments 
and Parties, vol. II, chaps. VIII-X. The fullest account of Bohemia in 
the nineteenth century is to be found in E. Denis, La Bohentie depuis la 
Montagne-Blanche, 2 vols. (Paris, 1903); vol. II, pp. 381-670, covers the 
period from 1850 to 1901. 

For descriptions of contemporary Austria and Hungary: Geoffrey 
Drage, Austria-Hungary (1909); Scotus- Viator (R. W. Seton-Watson), 
The Future of the Hungarian Nation (1908), and (by the same author) 
Racial Problems in Hungary (1908) ; A. R. Colquhoun, The Whirlpool 
of Europe. (1907) . A careful, scientific study of the races and nationalities 
in the dual monarchy is Auekbach, Les races et les ifiationalites en 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 755 

Autriche-Hongrie (1898). The leading authority on Austrian public 
law is Ulbhich, J., Oesterreiches Staatsrecht (3rd edit., Tubingen, 1904). 
See, also, for general conditions: Andre Chekadame, L' Europe et la 
question d'Autriche au seuil du XX<^ siecle (Paris, 1901, 452 pp.); 
Driault, Le monde actuel (1909), chap. III. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

England to the Reform Bill of 1832 

The best bibliographies on English history during the nineteenth 
century are in vols. XI and XII of Hunt and Poole's Political History 
of England. These are arranged under topics and are not mere lists 
of titles but are critical and descriptive, and constitute a very valuable 
guide. There are lists, without criticism, in connection with the various 
chapters of the Cambridge Modern History. Traill, Social England, 
vol. VI, contains useful bibliographies on many subjects not included in 
the preceding lists, such as literature, arts, sciences, industries, social 
life, etc. One can find source material in a form available for class use 
in Cheyney, Readings in English History Drawn from the Original 
Sources (1908), pp. 663-767; Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of 
English Constitutional History (1901), pp. 507-535; Robinson and 
Beard, Readings in Modern European History (1909), vol. II, pp. 239- 
337; Kendall, Source-Book of English History (1900), pp. 381-465; 
Lee, Source-Book of English History (1900), pp. 497-585. The 
fullest and most informing general history of this period is 
Walpole, History of England Since 1815 (1890), reaching to 1856, a 
work of solid scholarship and abundantly supplied with references to 
authorities; indispensable. Molesworth, History of England, 3 vols., is 
particularly full on the reform movements; account of the reform of 
1832 exceptionally good. Brodrick and Fotheringham, vol. XI, in 
Hunt and Poole, The Political History of England, covering years 
1801-1837, a book marked by good judgment and accuracy, but over- 
loaded with detail, a clear, substantial, and dry resume. See, also, 
Bright, History of England, vol. Ill; Traill, Social England, vol. VI, 
illustrated edit., more an encyclopedia of history than a history itself, 
with articles by specialists on many different departments of the national 
life, religion, laws, learning, arts, industry, commerce, manners. The 
political sections are the least satisfactory. The illustrations are 
numerous and admirable. Oman, England in the Nineteenth Century 
(1899), a sketch of no great importance, readable but not always im- 
partial. On Catholic Emancipation: see, Bryce, Tivo Centuries of Irish 
History, pp. 272-314; W. E. H. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in 
Ireland, 2 vols, (new edit., 1903). Vol. II is a life of O'Connell; Shaw- 
Lefevre, G. J., Peel and O'Connell. A Review of the Irish Policy of 
Parliament from, the Union to the Death of Sir Robert Peel (1887), 
pp. 1-13; Parker, C. S., Sir Robert Peel, 3 vols. (1899); vol. I, chaps. 
IX-XII; vol. II, chaps. III-V. On the movement for parliamentary 
reform: see, Molesworth, History of England, vol. I; McCarthy, Epoch 
of Reform, a convenient and clear, brief account; Rose, J. H., The Rise 
and Growth of Democracy in Great Britain (1898), chaps. I and II. 
An indispensable work for the understanding of the political system of 
England before the Reform Bill is Porritt, E. and A. G., The Un- 
reformed House of Commons, 3 vols. (1903), a clear, full, authoritative 
description of the representative system in England, not at all a de- 
scription of the Reform itself. On the Reform: consult, also, Walpole, 
Life of Lord John Russell, and Stuart Reid, Life and Letters of Lord 



756 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Durham, 2 vols. (1906). Books important for understanding the move- 
ment of ideas are Kekt, C. B. R., The English Radicals (1899); Sia 
Leslie Stephen, The English Utilitarians (1900), both valuable for the 
history of the radical party; Dicey, A. V., Lectures on the Relation Be- 
tioeen Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth 
Century (1905), a masterly exposition, commentary, and criticism; in- 
dispensable for the history of the whole century; contains an admirable 
statement of the influence of Bentham upon the legislation; valuable 
footnotes. On the foreign policy of Canning, the recent Life of Canning 
by H. W. V. Temperley (1905) is useful. Though written from the 
point of view of an advocate and defender, chaps. VIII-XII contain 
some new material on England and the Holy Alliance, the Congresses, 
America, and Greece. Stapleton's older Political Life of George Cavr- 
ning, 3 vols. (1831), is very valuable for foreign relations. W. Cun- 
ningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern 
Times, 3 vols., is best on the period before the nineteenth century. Vol. 
Ill, covering period from 1776-1850, does little mora than touch on 
general aspects. Important matters are treated very slightly — as, for 
instance, the work of Huskisson. 

CHAPTER XIX 
England Between Two Reforms 

On this period, Walpole, History of England Since 1815, remains the 
most important account. Vols. Ill, IV, V, and VI cover the period 
from 1832-1856; and the same author brings his narrative down to 1880 
in his History of Twenty-five years, 4 vols. (1904-1908), of which vols. I 
and II concern the period treated in this chapter. Molesworth's History 
of England and Traill's Social England, vol. VI, continue useful. The 
volume by Low and Sanders in the Political History of England covers 
the whole reign of Victoria (1837-1901), and is the best single volume 
on the subject. It is a clear, solid, and substantial history of political 
warfare and parliamentary proceedings, but is colorless and overloaded 
with details. Its critical bibliography is a very useful feature of the 
book. Justin McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, covers the Queen's 
reign in 5 vols., is written by a journalist and active politician, is very 
readable, interesting for its portraits of important persons and its de- 
scription of events, but is diffuse and sometimes trivial. McCarthy, J., 
Short History of Our Oivn Times (1908), 1 vol., treats the entire reign. 
Herbert Paul, A History of Modern England, 5 vols. (1904-1906), 
covers the years from 1846 to 1895, is a direct and vivid narrative, 
limited largely to parliamentary proceedings, with, however, chapters 
on literature and theology and ecclesiastical disputes; no treatment of 
social and economic problems and changes; written with dash and em- 
phasis, always confident, frequently partisan; standpoint that of a 
Gladstonian Liberal. 

The biographical literature on this period is very extensive. The best 
life of Queen Victoria is by Sidney Lee (1903); contains an excellent 
bibliography. Of very great value are The Letters of Queen Victoria, 
edited by Benson and Fisher, in 3 vols. (1907). There are two editions 
of this work, one costing three pounds, the other costing six shillings, 
the latter not sold, at present, in the United States. This is a selection 
from the Queen's correspondence between the years 1837 and 1861, very 
important as proving the Queen's ability and worth, her seriousness and 
intelligence as a ruler; also, as throwing much light on the characters 
and conduct of important statesmen, Melbourne, Peel, Palmerston, Rus- 
sell, and others. A work of great historical significance. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 757 

Brief biographies of the leading statesmen of the realm are con- 
tained in the series called The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, 
edited by Stuart J. Reid, a volume devoted to each. Mouley's Life of 
W. E. Gladstone, 3 vols. (1903), and Life of Richard Cobden (1881); 
Dalling's and Ashley's Life of Palmerston (1879); Robertson's Life of 
John Bright (1889); Walpole's Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. 
(1879); S. J. Reid's Lord John Russell (1895); Rosebery's *Sv> Robert 
Peel (1899); Sir T. Martin's Life of the Prince Consort, 5 vols. (1874- 
1880) ; Hodder's Life of the Seiienth Earl of Shaftesbury, 3 vols. (1886) ; 
Frank Podmore's Life of Robert Owen, 2 vols. (1906); and Graham 
Wallas's Life of Francis Place (1891), are among the most useful 
biographies on the period. 

On Chartism: see, P^. G. Gammage, History of Chartism (1894); 
Carjlyle, T., Chartism; Rose, The Rise of Democracy, chaps. VI, VII, 
and VIII; Thomas Cooper's Life, Written by Himself (1873). On Free 
Trade movement: Armitage-Smith, The Free Trade Movement (1898); 
Morley, Life of Cobden; Disraeli, Life of Sir George Bentinck; 
Parker, C. S., Sir Robert Peel, 3 vols. (1899), vol. Ill, an important col- 
lection of Peel's correspondence; also. Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel, 
2 vols. (1856-1857). See, also, J. S. Nicholson, History of the English 
Corn Laws (1904). On factory legislation: B. L. Hutchins and L. 
Harrison, History of Factory Legislation (1903). On the American 
Civil War: see, Walpole, History of Twenty-five Years, vol. II, chap. 
VIII. On constitutional questions: see, Sir Thomas Erskine May, Con- 
stitutional History of England; Taswell-Langmead, English Constitu- 
tional History. 



CHAPTER XX 

England Under Gladstone and Disraeli 

For this period, the general histories are: Walpole, History of 
Twenty-five Years, vols. II, III, and IV (coming down to 1880) ; Paul, 
History of Modern England, vols. Ill and IV; Bright, History of 
England, vol. IV, pp. 450-577; vol. V, pp. 1-87; McCarthy, History of 
Our Own Times, vols. II and III; Low and Sanders, pp. 233-376; 
Traill's Social England. Morley's Life of Gladstone is indispensable, 
written by a close personal friend, an experienced politician, and a 
master of historical prose. Fitzmaurice, Life of Earl Granville. 2 vols. 
(1905), vol. II; and Winston Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, 
2 vols. (1906), are important for the period. There is unfortunately no 
satisfactory life of Lord Beaconsfield. Froude's biography in the 
Queen's Prime Ministers series, is brief, superficial, and is very poor 
on the administration 1874-1880. Bryce has an essay on Lord 
Beaconsfield in his Studies in Contemporary Biography (1903), and 
Sir Spencer Walpole one in his Studies in Biography (1907). T. S. 
Kebbel, Selected Speeches of the Earl of Beaconsfield, 2 %-ols. (1882), 
is useful. On Ireland: see, Johnston and Spencer, Ireland's Story; 
Bryce, J., editor. Two Centuries of Irish History (1888); J. 
McCarthy, Ireland and Her Story; William O'Connor Morris, 
Ireland, 1798-1898 (1898); W. P. O'Brien, The Great Famine (1896); 
I'i. B. O'Brien, Parliamentary History of the Irish Land Ques- 
tion (1880), Fifty Years of Concessions to Ireland, 2 vols. (1883-1885), 
Irish Wrongs and English Remedies (1887). G. Shaw-Lefevre, English 
and Irish Land Questions (1881), contains a study of the Bright Clauses 
of the Land Act of 1870, pp. 115-165. A. G. Richey, The Irish Land 
Laws (1880), discusses at length the Land Act of 1870. 



758 BIBLIOG? ' HY 

CHAPTER XXI 

England Since 1886 

The most satisfactory account of recent English history is J. F. 
Bright, History of England, vol. V, 1880-1901, a book of solid merits; 
clearness of arrangement, directness of narrative, and remarkable free- 
dom from partisanship. For the period of this chapter; see, also, Low 
and Sanders, pp. 366-489; Paul, Modern England, vol. V; McCarthy, 
Our Oiim Times, vol. Ill, chaps. X-XXV. Of the first im- 
portance for the Home Rule bills is Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. 
Ill, a book that by reason of Morley's intimacy with Gladstone at this 
time has practically the value of a source; see, also, Churchill's Lord 
Randolph. Churchill, vol. II, and Fitzmaurice's Life of Earl Granville, 
vol. II, chaps. XIII-XIV, authoritative biographies, based on letters 
and documents. Churchill's great influence on the Conservative party is 
clearly shown by the former. Consult, also, R. B. O'Brien, Life of 
Charles Stewart Parnell, 3 vols. (1898). Interesting personal descrip- 
tions and appreciations of Gladstone are James Bryce, William Ewart 
Gladstone, in his Studies in Contemporary Biography (also published 
separately as a booklet), and Sir E. W. Hamilton, Mr. Gladstone, a 
Monograph (1898). Lord Rosebery, Lord Randolph Churchill (1896), 
is also suggestive. Traill, Life of the Marquis of Salisbury , contains 
practically nothing after 1886. H. Whates, The Third Salisbury Ad- 
ministration (1895-1900), is a useful book, containing maps and diplo- 
matic papers bearing on the South African war. 

On Ireland, a very important monograph is L. Paul Dubois, Con- 
temporary Ireland (1908). This is an English translation of L'Irlande 
contemporaine (Paris, 1907). Paul Dubois was the son-in-law of Taine. 
His book is largely historical and is useful for the whole nineteenth 
century. It contains a full discussion of the land question, and educa- 
tional, economic, and religious problems. 

On the revived interest in the question of Protection and Free Trade: 
see, G. Armitage-Smith, The Free Trade Movement and Its Results 
(1898); W. Smart, The Return of Protection (1903); W. J. Ashley, 
The Tarif Problem (1903); W. Cunningham, The Rise and Decline 
of the Free Trade Movement (2nd ed., 1905). These represent various 
points of view. While the theoretical economists like Marshall at Cam- 
bridge, and Edgeworth at Oxford, adhere to the belief in free trade, the 
economic historians, Cunningham and Ashley, have adopted the Chamber- 
lain programme on the ground that the rise of industrial rivals and the 
decline of her own resources have created a critical situation for Eng- 
land, and that one way of recovering or maintaining her leadership is a 
closer union of the empire, which, it is held, a system of protection 
would facilitate. An interesting general view by an outside observer is 
to be found in Carl Johannes Fuchs, The Trade Policy of Great 
Britain and Her Colonies Since 1860, a German book trans- 
lated by C. H. M. Archibald (1905). On education: see. Sir 
Henry Craik, The State in its Relation to Education (2nd edit., 1896) ; 
Graham Balfour, The Educational Systems of Great Britain and Ire- 
land (2nd edit., 1903), a comprehensive account of general education in 
the United Kingdom during the nineteenth century, based on depart- 
mental reports and the blue books of the numerous commissions which 
have investigated the subject; full of precise information. A very 
useful comparison of the systems of England, the United States, France, 
and Germany, is to be found in R. E. Hughes, The Making of Citizens: 
A Study in Comparative Education (1902). On government: see, A. L. 
Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (1908), by far the most 



BIB. ' JRAPHY 759 

authoritative, comprehensive, and illuminating treatise on the subject; a 
study, moreover, broadly conceived; indispensable not only for its 
profound and clear analysis and description of British government, im- 
perial, national, and local, but for the light it throws upon party 
machinery and present party programmes or tendencies. Other useful 
books on English government are the various volumes of the English 
Citizen Series, edited by Henry Craik; also, A. V. Dicey, The Law of 
the Constitution of the United Kingdom (1883); Sidney Low, The 
Governance of England (1904). An excellent brief description is T. F. 
MoRAN, The Theory and Practice of the English Government (1903). 
Bagehot, English Constitution, and Boutmy, The English Constitution, 
are also useful. Of the first importance is Anson, Law and Custom of 
the Constitution, 2 vols. (1892). See, also, Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary 
Government in England, 2 vols. (2nd edit., 1887-1889). A useful 
abridgment and revision of this work was made by Sir Spencer Walpole 
and published in 1892. Sir Courtney Ilbert, Legislative Methods and 
Forms (Oxford, 1901), is an authority. The fullest historical account of 
parliamentary procedure is Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House 
of Commons, a Study of its History and Present Form, 3 vols. 
(1908). 



CHAPTER XXn 
The British Empire in the Nineteenth Century 

On the general subject of European colonial expansion, the most ex- 
tensive work is Alfred Zimmermann's Die europdischen Kolonien (1895- 
1903). Five volumes have appeared. The first volume treats of the 
colonial policy of Spain and Portugal to the present, the second that 
of Great Britain to the American Revolution, the third that of Great 
Britain since the American Revolution, the fourth that of France to 
the present, the fifth that of the Netherlands. The volumes are well 
supplied with bibliographies and maps. Charles de Lannoy and 
Hermann van der Linden have undertaken a work called Histoire de 
I'expansion coloniale des peuples europeens, intended to show how each 
nation has acquired its colonies, how it has developed them, what the 
characteristics of each are. One volume was published in 1907 (Brus- 
sels), with bibliography and maps. It gives an account of Portuguese 
and Spanish colonies to the beginning of the nineteenth century. A use- 
ful book is Paul Leroy-Beaulieu's La colonisation chez les peuples 
modernes, 2 vols. (6th edit., 1908). 

On English colonial expansion in general: Zimmermann, cited above; 
H. E. Egerton, a Short History of British Colonial Policy (1897); 
covers the period from Cabot, 1497, down, treating British colonization 
as a continuous movement; the latter part concerns the nineteenth 
century; a careful, thoughtful book. By the same author, The Origin 
and Growth of the English Colonies and of their System, of Government 
(Oxford, 1904), being an introduction to Lucas's Historical Geography 
of the British Colonies. Contains very interesting chapters on the labor 
problem in new colonies, on the introduction of responsible government, 
on the problem of the future relations between the colonies and the 
mother country; also, a chronological outline of the various acquisitions 
made by Great Britain during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nine- 
teenth centuries. Sir Charles Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain 
(1890), has had a great influence in educating English opinion to the 
importance of the Empire and is full of information; by the same 
author, The British Empire (1899), a sort of birds-eye view. C. P. 



760 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Lucas's Historical Geografhy of the British Empire, 6 vols., new edit., 
1906 , in course of publication, is of the first importance, com- 
prehensive, accurate, containing much historical matter. W. H. Wood- 
ward's Short History of the Expansion of the British Empire, 1500- 
1870 (Cambridge, 1899), is a useful epitome. E. J. Payne, Colonies 
and Colonial Federations (1904), studies the Empire from geographical, 
historical, economic, and political points of view. See, also, Greswell, 
W. P., The Growth and Administration of British Colonies, 1837-1897 
(1898). J. R. Seeley, Expansion of England, is useful for an under- 
standing of the general subject. The British Empire Series, 5 vols. 
(1899-1903), contains a large amount of information, historical, political, 
economic, conditions for colonization, outlook for the future, etc.; vol. I 
concerns India; vol. II, British Africa; vol. Ill, British America; vol. IV, 
Australia. Bryce's Studies in History and Jurisprudence contain very im- 
portant studies on The Roman Empire and the British Empire in India, 
on Two South African Constitutions, and on the Constitution of the 
Commonwealth of Australia. Consult, also, on the Empire: Lowell, 
The Government of England, vol. II, chaps. LIV-LVIII; Cambridge 
Modern History, vol. XI, chaps. XXVI and XXVII, with bibliographies; 
also, for colonial development from 1815-1853, mainly in South Africa 
and Australia: V/alpole's History of England Since 1815, vol. VI, pp. 
335-379; also A. T. Story, The British Empire (Story of the Nations 
Series). Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary Government in the British 
Colonies (3nd edit., 1894), is an authoritative treatment of the opera- 
tion of responsible government in the colonies. 

On India: see, Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, chap. XXVI 
(from 1815 to 1869); R. W. Eraser, British Rule in India (Story of 
the Nations Series); Boulger, India in the Nineteenth Century (1901); 
DiGBY, Prosperous British India (1901), a severe arraignment of British 
government in India; M, Innes, The Sepoy Revolt (1897); Sir Johk 
Kaye, The Sepoy War, 3 vols. (1864-1876), completed by G. B. 
Malleson" (1878-1880) ; G. W. Forrest, A History of the Indian 
Mutiny, Revieioed and Illustrated from, Original Documents, 2 vols. 
(1904); G. B. Mallesox, The Indian Mutiny of 1857 (1891); Lilly, 
India and Its Problems. A. L. Lowell has a valuable chapter on the 
Civil Service of India in his Colonial Civil Service (1900). Sir Court- 
ney Ilbert, The Government of India (1898), is pronounced by Lowell 
to be " by far the best work on the public law of India." 

On Canada: Bibliography may be found in the A. L. A. Annotated 
Guide to the Literature of American History, edited by J. N. Earned 
(1903); bibliographies also in Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, and 
in Low and Sanders, History of England, 1837-1901. Good brief 
histories are: Sir John Bourinot, Canada Under British Rule, 1760- 
1900; C. G. D. Roberts, History of Canada (1904). Kingsford's 
elaborate history in ten volumes only reaches 1841. On Lord Durham's 
mission: see, F. Bradshaw, Self -Government in Canada and How it 
was Achieved, the Story of Lord Durham's Report (London, 1903); 
eight chapters are devoted to a careful account of the history of 
Canada to the outbreak of the Rebellion, and show the growth of the 
demand for responsible government; see, also, S. J. Reid, Life and 
Letters of Lord Durham, 2 vols. (1906), a very laudatory book but 
full of information concerning Lord Durham's work in Canada. Lord 
Durham's Report was republished in London in 1901. Perhaps the 
best manual dealing with the constitutional history of Canada is Sir 
John Bourinot's A Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada 
(1901). Canadian Constitutional Development, by H. E. Egerton and 
W. L. Grant (1907), contains speeches and despatches pertinent to the 
subject, with introduction and notes; see, also, William Houston, 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 761 

Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution (1891). Canada 
and the Empire, by E. Montague and B. Herbert (1904), is written 
from an imperialist standpoint. Holland, B., Imperium et Libertas. A 
Study in History and Politics (1901); pp. 95-190 treat Canadian history 
from 1763 to 18()7. 

On Australasia: see, the excellent History of the Australasian Colonies 
by E. Jenks (1895), which comes down to 1893; also, G. Tregarthek, 
Australian Commonwealth (Story of the Nations Series) ; comes down 
to 1891 ; also an admirable volume by J. D. Rogers in Lucas's Historical 
Geography of the British Colonies, vol. VI (1907). The most valuable 
work for the recent constitutional development is The Annotated Consti- 
tution of the Australian Commonwealth by Sir J. Quick, and R. R. 
Garran (Sydney, 1901). This contains a full history of the movement 
toward federation and of each clause of the constitution. W. H. Moore, 
The Constitution of the Commomvealth of Australia (1902), is an im- 
portant commentarj-. Bryce has a useful account of the making and 
character of the constitution in his Studies in History and Jurisprudence. 
On social and economic conditions and measures and experiments: see. 
Reeves, The Long White Cloud (1899), and State Experiments in Aus- 
tralia and New Zealand, 2 vols. (1903); H. D. Lloyd, Neivest England 
(New Zealand and Australia) (1900); V. Clark, The Labor Mox^ement 
in Australia. The most recent book is by B. R. Wise, entitled The Com- 
momcealth of Australia (Boston, 1909), a description of the country, of 
political institutions, of industrial legislation, etc. On New Zealand: 
see, also, Sir Arthur P. Douglas, The Dominion of Nexo Zealand (1909). 

For South Africa: see, G. M. Theal, South Africa (Story of the 
Nations Series, 1894); pp. 138-387 cover the years 1815-1890; Frank 
R. Cana, South Africa from the Great Trek to the Union (1909). An 
excellent account of the history of Europeans in South Africa down to 
1895 is contained in Bryce's Impressions of South Africa (1897), pp. 
99-182. A clear account of the causes and early course of the Boer 
war is given in Bright's History of England, vol. V, pp. 234-266. Many 
of the important state papers, mostly English, bearing on this war, are 
in Earned, History for Beady Reference, vol. VL pp. 456-517. For 
the Boer side of the case: see, the Memoirs of Paul Kruger. Sir A. Conan 
Doyle, The Great Boer War (1902), is a useful narrative, from the 
British standpoint. The Times History of the War in South Africa, 
edited by L. C. Amery, vols. I-IV (1900-1906), is very detailed. On the 
literature of the South African War: see, American Historical Review, 
vol. Xn, pp. 299-321. On the recent federation movement: see, R. H. 
Brand, The Union of South Africa (1909), which contains the South 
Africa Act of 20th September, 1909, an account of its elaboration and 
adoption and a study of its provisions. 

On the reaction of imperialism upon the mother country: see, Richard 
Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, (1905); contains chapters on 
Canada, From Colonies to Commonwealth (Australia), New Zealand, 
South African War, the Colonial Conference of 1902, Nationalism in 
Tariffs, and Imperial Partnership. See, also, J. W. Root, Colonial 
Tariffs (Liverpool, 1906); Carl Johannes Fuchs, The Trade Policy of 
Great Britain and her Colonies Since 1S60 (1905). See, also, Bernard 
Holland, Imperium et Libertas (1901), pp. 265-319. An important 
work concerning the colonies, recently published, is The Legislation of 
the Empire: Being a Survey of the Legislative Enactments of the British 
Dominions from 1898 to 1909. Edited by C. E. A, Bedwell, with a 
preface by Lord Rosebery, 4 vols. (1909). Contains about 25,000 acts 
and ordinances. 



762 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

CHAPTER XXIII 

Africa 

For explorations in Africa: see, David Livingstone, by Thomas Hughes 
(1889); (by Livingstone himself), Missionary Travels and Researches 
in South Africa (1857), and Last Journals in Central Africa, from 
1865 to death, edited by Wallee (1875) ; H. M. Stanley, How I Found 
Livingstone; Travels, Adventures, and Discoveries in Central Africa 
(1872); Through the Dark Continent or the Sources of the Nile, 2 vols. 
(1878); The Congo and the Founding of Its Free State, 2 vols. (1885); 
In Darkest Africa, 2 vols. (1890); The Autobiography of Henry M. 
Stanley, edited by his wife, Dorothy Stanley (1909), chaps. XIII, XV- 
XVIII; V. L. Cameron, Across Africa (1876); Carl Peters, Neiv Light 
on Dark Africa (1891). A very useful collection of contemporary 
accounts is, Africa and Its Exploration, as Told by Its Ex- 
plorers, 2 vols. (London, Sampson Low, Marston & Co., no date). See, 
also, Robert Brown, Story of Africa, 4 vols. (1894-1895). 

On the partition, of Africa, the most important book is J. Scott 
Keltie, The Partition of Africa (1895); see, also, Emile Banning, 
Le partage politique de I'Afrique d'apres les transactions internationales 
les plus recentes, 1885-1888 (1888); A. S. White, The Development of 
Africa. A Study in Applied Geography (2nd edit., 1892); for a short 
account. Rose, J. H., The Development of European Nations, vol. II, 
chap. VII. Sir Harry Johnston, History of the Colonization of Africa 
by Alien Races (1899), is a very useful manual, compressing a large 
amount of information into a small compass; written by a man who is 
an authority on African affairs, having traveled extensively in that con- 
tinent, and having been consul and administrator there; describes the 
efforts of the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and the other nations; has 
brief chapters on the history of the slave trade, of exploration, of mis- 
sions, etc. 

On England in Egypt: Rose, Development of European Nations, vol. 
II, chaps. IV-VI; Cromer, Modern Egypt, 2 vols. (1908), practically a 
history of Egypt from 1876 to 1908, of the Dual Control which was 
succeeded by the Single Control of England, by the man who was the 
British representative in Egypt for twenty-seven years. An invaluable 
book, marked by a wealth of precise information, by positiveness, by 
judicial temper, and by an extraordinary detachment of view. Is, to a 
considerable degree, an historical source as well as a history. For an 
important review of this book by Mr. Bryce, see, American Historical 
Review, vol. XIV, pp. 357-362. On the British intervention and the 
Gordon chapter one should consult in addition to Cromer: Morley's Glad- 
stone, vol. Ill, and Fitzmaurice's Granville, vol. II. Other important 
books on Egypt are: Sir Alfred Milner's England in Egypt (11th edit., 
1904) ; Sir A. Colvin's The Making of Modern Egypt (3nd edit., 1906) ; 
A. Metin's La Transformation de I'Egypte (1903) ; J. C. Rotrx, L'Isthme 
et le Canal de Suez, 2 vols. (1901). Popular accounts are E. Dicey, 
Story of the Khedivate (1902), and The Egypt of the Future (1906). 
The Story of Kitchener's campaign is graphically told by G. W. 
Steevens, With Kitchener to Khartum (1898). On the Congo Free 
State, there is a short account in Rose, Development of European 
Nations, vol. II, chap. VIII. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 763 

CHAPTER XXIV 

Spain and Portugal Since 1823 

There is no satisfactory history of Spain in the nineteenth century in 
English. Butler Clarke's Modern Spain, 1815-1898, is the fullest, but 
is overloaded with details, not eifectively presented. Pages 91-470 cover 
the period of this chapter. A bibliography is appended. Hume, Modern 
Spain, 1788-1S9S (1899), is a shorter and more interesting account; 
pages 2-18-563 treat the period 1823-1898. There are brief chapters in 
Cavibridge Modern History, vol. X, chap. VII, and vol. XI, chap. XX, 
bringing the history down to 1871. 

Hubbard, Histoire contemporaine de I'Espagne, 6 vols. (1869-1883), 
is useful, treating the period 1814 to 1868. Vols. Ill and IV cover the 
years 1833 to 1843, and vols. V and VI the reign of Isabella II, 1843- 
1868. Y\t:s Guyot, L'Evolution politique et soclaJe de I'Espagne (1899), 
is mainly a description of social, political, and economic conditions, not 
a history. 

In German, see, Baumgarten, H., Geschtchte Spaniens vom Atis- 
bruch der franzosischen Revolution bis auf unsere Tage, 3 vols., 
(1865-1871). Vol. II treats of the restoration of Ferdinand, the revolu- 
tion of 1820, and the subsequent intervention (1814-1825) ; vol. Ill, the re- 
mainder of Ferdinand's reign and the Carlist wars. A more recent Ger- 
man work is GusTAv Diercks, Geschichte Spaniens von der frilhesten 
Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 2 vols. (1895-1896); pp. 544-674 concern 
our period. E. H. Strobel, The Spaiiish Revolution, 1868-1875 (Boston, 
1898), is a clear and comprehensive account of the parliamentary history 
of Spain during the six years from the overthrow of Isabella II to the 
restoration of Alfonso XII. The book also throws much light on the 
manipulation of parliamentary institutions in Spain. H. Remsen White- 
house, The Sacrifice of a Throne (1897), is the best description we have 
of the election, reign, and abdication of Amadeo of Savoy. Hannay, D., 
Don Emilio Castelar (1896), a life of the republican leader. On the 
colonies: see, J. W. Root, Spain and Its Colonies (1898) ; Zimmermann, 
A., Die europdischen Kolonien, vol. I, Die Kolonialpolitik Portugals und 
Spaniens (1899); H. W. Wilson, The Downfall of Spain (1900), is a 
naval history of tlie Spanish-American war of 1898. 

On constitutional history: see, Gmelin, Studien zur spanischen Ver- 
fassungsgeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1905); 
also, J. L. M. Curry, Constitutional Government in Spain (1899). Curry 
was United States Minister to Spain from 1885 to 1889. The constitu- 
tion itself is in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, vol. II. On Portugal in the 
nineteenth centurj^ there is a slight sketch of the years 1815 to 1880 
in H. Morse Stephens, Portugal (Story of the Nations Series, 1891), 
pp. 409-432; see, also, chapters in Cambridge Modern History cited above. 
On the colonies: see, Zimmermann, op. cit.; G. M. Theal, The Portuguese 
in South Africa (1896). 

CHAPTER XXV 

Holland and Belgium Since 1830 

For Holland and Belgium: consult, Cambridge Modern History, vol. 
X, chap. XVI, and vol. XI, chap. XXIII; IvAvisse et Rambaud, Histoire 
generate, vol. X, chap. IX, vol. XI, chap. XI, vol. XII, chap. VI; also, 
Seignobos, Political History of Europe Since 18Vf, chap. VIII. The 
best history of Holland in the last century is in Dutch and has not yet 
been translated: Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk; vol. 



764 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

VII (1907) covers the French period and the history of the United 
Netherlands to the secession of Belgium; vol. VIII (1908) continues the 
narrative down to the opening of the twentieth century; an impartial, 
critical, scientific work, containing much more than simply political 
history. Cuve Day, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in 
Java (1904<), is a book of the first importance. On Belgium: see, 
Smythe, C, The Story of Belgium (Story of the Nations Series, 1900); 
T. Juste, Leopold I, Boi des Beiges, d'apres les documents inedits, 3 vols. 
(1868); Bertrand, L., Leopold II et son rdgne 1865-1890 (Brussels, 
1890); WiLMOTTE, M., La Belgique morale et politique, 1830-1890 
(Brussels, 1902); MacDoknell, J. de C, King Leopold II, His Rule in 
Belgium and the Congo (London, 1905) ; Bertrand, L., Histoire de la 
democratie et du socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830, 2 vols. (Brussels, 
1907); comes down to 1905; Flanmx, E., Institutions politiques de 
I'Europe conteraporaine (Paris, 1907), vol. I, pp. 160-307; Banning, E., 
La Belgique au point de vue militaire et Internationale (Brussels, 1901); 
DupRiEz, Leon, L' organisation du suffrage universel en Belgique. Vote 
plural, vote obligatoire, representation proportionelle (Paris, 1901). 
Constitution of Belgium in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, vol. I. 



CHAPTER XXVI 

Switzerland 

There are in English only brief accounts of Swiss history since 1815. 
See, Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, chap. VIII, down to 1874; 
Seignobos, Political History of Europe Since 1814, chap. IX; Hug and 
Stead, Sicitzerland (Story of the Nations Series, 1890), pp. 382-421 ^ 
comes down to 1889. McCracken, W. D., The Rise of the Sioiss 
Republic (2nd edit., 1901), pp. 319-372; see, also. Baker, F. G., The 
Model Republic. A History of the Rise and Progress of the Swiss 
People (1895), pp. 462-538. The most important work is Seippel, Paul, 
La Suisse au dix-neuvidme siecle, 3 vols. (Lausanne, 1899-1900). A co- 
operative work by a group of Swiss writers. The section on the political 
history of Switzerland in the nineteenth century, vol. I, pp. 51-378, is 
by NuMA Droz, a former President of the Confederation. The work also 
contains very valuable chapters on the history of institutions, on 
constitutional, civil, and criminal law,, on the international role of 
Switzerland, on education, religion, economic history, arts, etc. Karl 
Dandliker, a Short History of Switzerland, translated by E. 
Salisbury (London, 1899), has a section covering the period 1813-1874, 
pp. 237-294. On Swiss political institutions, the best book in English is 
J. M. Vincent, Government in Switzerland (1900); contains the federal 
constitution and an excellent critical chapter on the literature of the 
subject. Borgeaud, C, Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions, 
translated by C. D. Hazen (1895), pp. 258-332, is important for the 
evolution of Swiss constitutional law. Lowell, A. L., Governments and 
Parties in Continental Europe, vol. II, chaps. XI-XIII, contains an 
admirable description of the political institutions of Switzerland and of 
the party history after 1848. Other books descriptive of Swiss institu- 
tions are: Adams, F. O., and Cunningham, C. D., The Swiss Confederor- 
Hon (1889); Winchester, B., The Swiss Republic (1891); Lloyd, H, D., 
and HoBsoN, J. A., A Sovereign People; a Study of Swiss Democracy 
(1907). An interesting study of democratic government in one of the 
Landesgemeinde cantons is I. B. Richman's Appenzell, Pure Democracy 
and Pastoral Life in Inner Rhoden (1895). Contains chapters on 
politics, laws, administration, cantonal and domestic economy, education, 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 765 

charities, etc. Useful for the study of the referendum, is Deploige, The 
Referendum, in Switzerland, translated by C. P. Trevelyan (London, 
1898) ; by a Belgian lawyer. W. H. Dawson, Social Switzerland, Studies 
of Present Day Social Movements and Legislation in the Swiss Republic 
(London, 1897); contains chapters on the organization and protection 
of labor, on industrial peace, the problem of the unemployed, poor law 
agencies, technical education, control of the liquor traffic. 



CHAPTER XXVII 

The Scandinavian States 

There is very little in English on the subject of this chapter. Useful 
brief accounts are to be found in Bain, R. N., Scandinavia, A Political 
History of Denmark, Norioay, and Sweden, from 1513 to 1900 (Cam- 
bridge, 1905); chap. XVI concerns Denmark since 1814; chap. XVII, 
Sweden and Norway since 1814; Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, 
chap. XXIV, Scandinavia 1815-1870; Seignobos, Political Historij of 
Europe, chap. XVIII; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire generate, vol. X, 
chap. XVIII; vol. XI, chap. XII; vol. XII, chap. VII, give an excellent, 
though brief narrative, covering the period 1815-1900. H. H. Boyesen, The 
History of Norway (Story of the Nations Series, 1886), jjp. 516-538. On 
the Norwegian-Swedish crisis: see, Fridtjof Nansen's Norway and the 
Union with Stoeden (London, 1905); an historical sketch from the 
Treaty of Kiel, 1814, through the dissolution of the Union; presents the 
Norwegian side. K. Nordlund, The Stoedish-N orioegian Union Crisis, 
A History with Documents (Stockholm, 1905), presents the Swedish side 
and criticises Nansen. Consult, also, Moiin, A., La Siidde et la revolu- 
tion norvegienne (Paris, 1905) ; Fahleeck, P., La constitution suedoise 
et le parlementarisme moderne (Paris, 1905), a brief sketch of Swedish 
constitutional history and government. The constitutions of Denmark, 
Norway, and Sweden, are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions. Much useful, 
miscellaneous information is contained in Sundbarg, Sweden, Its People 
and Industries (1900); Weitemeyer, H., Denmark (London, 1891); and 
Carlsen, Olrik, and Starcke, Le Danemark, Etat actuel de sa civilisa- 
tion et de son organisation sociale (Copenhagen, 1900) ; a work published 
on the occasion of the Universal Exposition at Paris in 1900. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

The Disruption of the Ottoman Empire and the Rise op the 
Balkan States 

There is no adequate treatment in English^ of the Eastern Question 
in its entirety. An admirable French book is Edouard Driault, La ques- 
tion d'Orient depuis ses origines jusqu'a nos jours (3nd edit., Paris, 
1900), a book that may be cordially recommended to any one desiring a 
guide to a very complicated and widely ramified branch of history. The 
author's conception of the Eastern Question is large, including not 
only the fate of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, but the decline of 
Islam in Europe, Asia, and Africa. After a brief sketch of the 
Byzantine and Latin Empires, the conquests of the Turks, Driault 
traces the history of the Eastern Question in the eighteenth century. 
Napoleon's Oriental projects, the Greek war of independence, the 
internal reforms in Turkey, the Crimean war and its consequences, the 
war in the Balkans, the rise of the various states. Recent phases of the 



766 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

general problem are then treated: the Armenian Massacres, the Cretan 
problem, the Greco-Turkish war, the Macedonian question, and the 
relations of Occidental powers with Islam in Asia and Africa. The 
chief merit of the work lies, not in research, but in the orderly and 
effective arrangement and presentation of a mass of widely scattered 
information. The book contains useful bibliographical references to 
important secondary material. 

There is a useful though limited bibliography on the Eastern Ques- 
tion by Georges Bengesco, Essai d'une notice bibliographique sur la 
question d'Orient. Orient Europeen, 1821-1897 (Brussels, 1897). This 
concerns only the question of Europe in Turkey and is limited to works 
published in France and Belgium. Bengesco was formerly Roumanian 
minister to Belgium. T. E. Holland, The European Concert in the 
Eastern Question, contains many treaties, etc, bearing on the general 
question (1885). 

On the Greek war of independence, there is a long and interesting 
chapter, sketching the Greek renaissance and describing vividly the 
military and diplomatic aspects of the stirring story in Fyffe, History 
of Modern Europe, vol. II, chap. IV (or chap. XV, in the one volume 
edition). W. Allison Phillips, The War of Greek Independence 
(1897), treats the years 1821 to 1833. Having no adequate introduction, 
the book lacks background, but the narrative of events is full, fair, 
and interesting. It is not based upon original investigation but upon 
works of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Finlay, Gordon, and Prokesch-Osten, 
FiNLAY, G., History of the Greek Revolution, is an important account, 
drawn largely upon the author's first hand knowledge of events. Tozer's 
edition, 1877, is the best as representing Finlay's matured views. The 
Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, edited by his daughter, 
Lauea E. Richards, are very valuable; vol. I, entitled The Greek 
Revolution (Boston, 1906), throws a flood of light upon the course of 
the war. The volume is based almost entirely upon the journal of Howe, 
who, graduating from Brown University in 1821, and from Harvard 
Medical School in 1824, went immediately to Greece, joined the Greek 
army, created a surgical corps and also distinguished himself as a 
commander. His journal, though marked by serious gaps, is a vivid 
historical source for the years 1835 to 1829. Howe's volume called. 
Sketch of the Greek Revolution, published in 1828, also abounds in 
graphic descriptions at first hand of men and events. Interesting side- 
lights on the Greek war are also to be found in the works of Lord 
Byron, Letters and Journals, vol. VI, edited by Rowland E. Prothero 
(London, 1904). 

Perhaps the most important recent account of this whole chapter of 
Greek history is in Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. II, chaps. VII and 
XIV; vol. Ill, chaps. IV-VI; vol. IV, chap. X. 

On the Crimean War: see, Walpole, History of England Since 1815, 
vol. VI, chap. XXIV; jMcCarthy, History of Our Own Times, vol. I, 
chaps. XXV-XXVIII; Paul, History of Modern England, vol. I, chaps. 
XVII-XIX, and vol. II, chap. I. Paul's characterization of Napoleon III 
is so overdone as to approach the ridiculous. Kinglake's monumental 
Invasion of the Crimea (8 vols., 1863-1887) is a brilliant performance in 
a way, picturesque and full of detail, but is frequently amusingly 
portentous and Homeric in tone; is marked by a pronounced dislike of 
Napoleon III; and is, moreover, incomplete, stopping at the death of 
Lord Raglan. Probably the most informing and most interesting ac- 
count, judicial as well, is that of Gorce in his Histoire du Second Em- 
pire, vol. I, pp. 134-481, a masterly piece of exposition. An important 
phase of this war is well treated by H. Friedjung in Der Krimkrieg und 
die oesterreichische Politik (1907), a clear, scientific analysis of the 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 767 

peculiarly involved and diiBcult foreign relations of Austria during the 
years 1853-1856; a purely diplomatic study. An excellent brief treat- 
ment of the diplomacy of the period is contained in Andrews, Historical 
Development of Modern Europe, vol. II, chap. II. 

On the re-opening of the Eastern Question, the war in the Balkans 
and the Congress of Berlin: Walpole, History of Twenty-fiiie Years, 
vol. IV, chaps. XVII and XVIII; Paul, History of Modern England, 
vol. IV, chaps. I and II; McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, vol. II, 
chaps. LXIV and LXV; Rose, The Development of the European 
Nations, vol. I, chaps. VII-IX (includes a clear account of the Russo- 
Turkish campaign) ; Hanotaux, Contemporary France, vol. IV, chaps. 
II and V; Debidour, Histoire diplomatique, vol. II, chap. XIII; 
Bourgeois, E., Manuel historique de politique Urangere, vol. Ill, pp. 783- 
815; MoRLEY, Life of Gladstone, vol. II, pp. 548-583; Bismarck, Reflec- 
tions and Reminiscences, vol. II, cha^^. XXVIII; Skrine, Expansion of 
Russia, pp. 243-265; Sergeant, L., Greece in the Nineteenth Century, 
pp. 270-307; Whitman, S., Reminiscences of the King of Roumania, 
chaps. VIII-XI. 

On Bulgaria since 1878: see, Rose, Development of the European 
Nations, vol. I, chap. X; Miller, W., The Balkans (Story of the Nations 
Series), pp. 215-248 (comes down to 1896); A. H. Beaman, Stambuloff 
(1895); E. Dicey, The Peasant State (1894); Odysseus (Sir C. Eliot), 
Turkey in Europe. 

On Roumanian history: see. Whitman, Reminiscences of the King 
of Roumania, chap. XI; Frederic Dame, Histoire de la Roumanie con- 
temporaine depuis I'avknement des princes indigenes jusqu'a nos jours. 
1822-1900 (Paris, 1900); Bellesort, A., La Roumanie contemporaine 
(Paris, 1905), a book of travel; G. Benger, Roumania in 1900, trans- 
lated by A. H. Keene (London, 1900), with bibliography; contains 
chapters on history, political organizations, commerce, religion, art, etc.; 
A. de Bertha, Magyars et Roumains devant I'histoire (Paris, 1899) ; 
Eliade, p., Histoire de I'esprit public en Roumanie au XIX& siScle 
(Paris, 1905) ; Fisher, E., Die Herkunft der Rumdnen (Bamberg, 1904) ; 
Georges Bengesco, Bibliographie Franco-Roumaine , depuis le commence- 
ment du XIXe si^cle jusqu'a nos jours (Paris, 1907), a list of works 
edited or published in France concerning Roumania, French works pub- 
lished by Roumanian authors, doctoral theses sustained by Roumanians 
down to 1894 before French faculties. 

On Servian history: see. Miller, The Balkans, part III, chap. VII; very 
brief. Miller's book in general is very inadequate on period since 1878; 
P. Coquelle, Le Royaume de Serbie (Paris, 1901). Covers the history 
from 610 A. D. down; pp. 215-298 concern the nineteenth century from 
1815 to 1900. 

On Greece under Otto: see. Sergeant, L., Greece in the Nineteenth 
Century (1897), pp. 218-258; Finlay, G., History of the Greek Revolu- 
tion, book V, chap. IV (down to 1843). On reign of George I: see, 
Sergeant, Greece in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 358-395. Bickford- 
Smith, R. a. H., Greece Under King George (1893), is not a history 
but a description of economic conditions, education, army and navy, 
constitution, etc. On Greece: see, also, Sir Richard C. Jebb's Modern 
Greece. Two lectures with papers on The Progress of Greece and 
Byron in Greece (1880), 2nd edition published in 1901. 

On Turkey in the nineteenth century: see, Seignobos, Political History 
of Europe Since 1814, chap. XX; S. Lane-Poole, Turkey (Story of the 
Nations Series, 1888), pp. 340-365; Odysseus (Sir C. Eliot), Turkey in 
Europe (1900); Villari, editor. The Balkan Question (1905); Brails- 
ford, H. N., Macedonia., Its Races and Their Future (1906); W. M. 
Ramsey, Impressions of Turkey. On recent events: see, Barton, Day- 



768 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

break in Turkey (Boston, 1909); C. R. Buxton, Turkey in Revolution 
(London, 1909) ; G. F. Abbott, Turkey in Transition (1909). 



CHAPTER XXIX 
Russia to the War with Japan 

The best history of Russia in English covering our period is Skkine, 
F. H., Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900 (1903); clear and free from 
partisanship; contains maps and bibliography. Rambaud, History of 
Russia from the Earliest Times to 1877, translated by L. B. Lang, 2 vols., 
vol. II, pp. 200-285, is useful. Rambaud's work was pronounced by 
Turgenieff " superior to any other history accessible to Western Europe." 
Rambaud, The Expansion of Russia, Problems of the East and Problems 
of the Far East (Burlington, Vt., 1900), a very useful resume of the 
Russian advance into Asia. Morfill, W. R. A., History of Russia from 
the Birth of Peter the Great to the Death of Alexander II (1902), con- 
tains a good deal of information, poorly presented. Pages 342-471 cover 
the years from 1815 to 1898. By the same author, Russia (Story of the 
Nations Series, 1890), chaps. XI-XIV. 

On the reign of Alexander I, the most important work is T. Schie- 
MANN, Russland unter Nikolaus I, vol. I. Tliis volume treats the reign 
of Alexander I, though not fully. Chap. IX, pp. 351-487, is a remark- 
ably fine chapter on the conditions of Russia at that time. There are 
also chapters on Polish questions and a sketch of the career of Nicholas 
before his accession. Stern, Geschichte Europas, vol. Ill, chap. I, has 
a valuable survey of the last ten years of Alexander's reign; consult, 
also, C. JoYNEviLLE, Life and Times of Alexander I, 3 vols. (1875). 

On Nicholas I: Schiemank, work cited, vol. II, covers the five years 
1825 to 1830, and contains many important documents; Stern, Geschichte 
Europas, vol. Ill, chap. II; on the beginning of the reign, 1825-1827; 
Bernhardi, T., Unter Nikolaus und Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1893); 
Thouvenel, L., Nicholas et Napoleon III, 1852-1854 (1891); Haxthau- 
SEN, Etude sur les institutions naiionales de la Russie, translated from 
the German, 3 vols. (1847-1853); important for its description of the 
mir. On the reforms of Alexander II: see. Sir Donald Mackenzie 
Wallace, Russia (revised edition, 1905), chaps. XXVII-XXXIII; 
Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians, 
translated by Z. A. Ragozin, 3 vols. (1893-1896); vol. I devoted to the 
country and the people; vol. II to institutions; vol. Ill to religion and 
church affairs. These two are the best general descriptions of Russia 
and contain a great deal of history. See, also, for the reforms: Maxime 
Kovalevsky, Russian Political Institutions (Chicago, 1902), chaps. VI- 
IX. On social unrest and nihilism: Wallace, chap. XXXIV; Leroy- 
Beaulieu, vol. II, Book VI; A. Thun, Geschichte der revolutiondren 
Beioeyungen in Russland (1883) — covers the period from 1863 to 1880 
and has a good bibliography. The writings of a Russian refugee, 
Stepniak (pseudonym), llnderground Russia (1882), The Russian 
Peasant (1888), are important, as describing conditions and state of 
mind of the masses; also, Gogol, Dead Souls. 

On the reign of Alexander III: see, H. von Samson-Himmelstieena, 
Russia Under Alexander III (1897); Charles Lowe, Alexander 
III (1895); E. Flourens, Alexander III (1894); George Kennan, 
Siberia and the Exile System,, 2 vols. (4th edit., 1897); Pobyedonostseff, 
K. P., Reflections of a Russian Statesman (London, 1898). 

On the reign of Nicholas II: consult, Wallace, Russia, chaps. 
XXXVI-XXXIX; Piehre Leroy-Beaulieu, The Awakening of 



BIBLIOGRx\PHY 

The East, Siberia, Japan, China (1900); for a description of 
the development of Siberia: Vladimir, Russia on the Pacific, and the 
Siberian Railway (1899); M. M. Shoemaker, The Great Siberian Rail- 
icay (1903); G. F. Wiiight, Asiatic Russia, 2 vols. (1903); A. Krausse, 
Russia in Asia (1899), strongly partisan, Russoi^hobe; Combes de 
Lestrade, La Rnssie economique et sociale a I'avtnement de 8. M.. 
Nicholas II (1896) ; M. Kovalevsky, Le regime economique de la 
Biissie (1898), and W. de Kovalewsky, L' Agriculture en Rttssie (1897) 
and La Russie a la fin du XIXe siecle (1900) ; Geoffrey Drage, Russian 
Affairs (1904). Stepniak, King Log and King Stork, a Study of 
Modern Russia, 2 vols. (1895), and Prince Kropotkin, Memoirs of a 
Revolutionist, 2 vols. (1899), throw much light on conditions of Russian 
life. 

On Poland: see, Morfill, Poland (1893), (Story of the Nations Series), 
chaps. XII-XIV, and Brandes, G. M. C, Poland, A Study of the Land, 
People, and Literature (1903), a recent book by a Danish literary critic; 
Kovalevsky, M., Russian Political Institutions, chap. X. 

On Finland: J. R. Fisher, Finland and the Tsars, 1S09-1S99 (London, 
1899) ; F. Moreau, La question flnlandaise (ISOO) ; H. de Wukdt, Fin- 
land as It Is (London, 1901); Kovalevsky, M., Russian Political Insti- 
tutions, chap, XI. H. Norman, All the Russias (1903), presents the 
Russian side of the Finnish question, pp. 84-95. 



CHAPTER XXX 

The Far East 

The best English book on the relations between Europe and the East 
is Sir Robert K. Douglas, Europe and the Far East (1904); contains 
a bibliography ; treats of the opening of China and Japan to Western 
influences, the rise and re-organization of Japan, the Asiatic wars v/ith 
European powers, the Chino-Japanese war, the Boxer insurrection, etc.; 
comes down to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war. An admirable 
French book is Edouard Driaitlt, La Question d'Extreme Orient (1908) ; 
studies Chinese and Japanese civilizations, the history of the relations 
of Asia with Europe from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, gives 
an account of the Chino-Japanese and the Russo-Japanese wars and 
describes the present situation. Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, The Awakening 
of the East (1900), comes down to 1899 and contains a good chapter on 
Japan (pp. 81-182), and on China (pp. 183-289). For a briefer treat- 
ment: see, Cambridge Modern History, vol. XI, chap. XXVIII. The 
Library of Congress published (Washington, 1904) a Select List of 
Books Relating to the Far East. 

On the opening of China: see, Reinsch, P. S., World Politics (1900), 
pp. 86-257, very clear and illuminating; Colquhoun, A. R., China in 
Transformation (1898); Smith, A. H., China in Convulsion, 2 vols. 
(1901), by an American, long a missionary in China; Brown, A. J., 
New Forces in Old China (1904); Martin, W. A. P., The Awakening 
of China (1907). Cordier, H., Ilistoire des relations de la Chine avec 
les puissances occidentales, 2 vols. (1901-1902), covers the period since 
1860. A. H. Smith's Chinese Characteri.itics (1890) is a very informing 
book by one who is recognized as an authority on China. Morse, H. M., 
The Trade and Administration of the Chinese Empire (1908), by a 
Harvard graduate, for thirty-three years resident in China. 

On Japan: see, Murray, D., The Story of Japan (1894), chaps. XIII- 
XV; Griffis, W. E., Life of Matthew Calbraith Perry (1887), The 
Mikado's Empire (10th edit., 1903); The Japanese Nation in Evolution 



770 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(1907); describes recent events; Iyenaga, The Constitutional Develop- 
ment of Japan (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Baltimore, 1891); 
GoLLiEB, Theophile, Essai sur les institutions poUtiques clu Japan 
(Brussels, 1903), a good account of the Japanese government; Knox, 
G. W., Imperial Japan (1905). On the causes of the Russo-Japanese 
war: see, Asakawa, The Russo-Japanese Conflict (1904). For a list of 
books on the Russo-Japanese war: see. Statesman's Year Book for 1908, 
p. 1223. An important book is Hershey, A. S., The International Law 
and Diplom,acy of the Russo-Japanese War (1906); contains, among 
others, excellent chapters on the causes of the war and on the Treaty 
of Portsmouth. 

A very interesting account by a participant in one of the great events 
of the war is Capt. Vladimir Semenoff, The Battle of Tsushima be- 
tween the Japanese and Russian Fleets, Fought on 21th of May, 1905. 
Translated by A. B. Lindsay (London, 1906, 165 pp.). 

Millard, T. A., The New Far East (1907) ; an examination of the 
present situation of Japan and her relation to the Far Eastern Question, 
with special reference to the interests of the United States and the 
future of China; contains chapters on Japan in Korea, in Manchuria, 
the New China, Japan, China and the West; contains, also, the Anglo- 
Japanese Alliance of 1905, the Treaty of Portsmouth, the Japanese- 
Korean Agreement of 1905. 

Dyer, Henry, Japan in World Politics (1909), by a professor emeritus 
in the University of Tokio; has chapters on the Meeting of the Far 
East and the West, on the Rise of Japan as a World Power, on the 
Factors of National Life, on the Civilizations of the East and the 
West, etc. 

There are many important articles on Japan in the Encyclopedia 
Americana, written by Japanese specialists. 

CHAPTER XXXI 

Russia Since the War with Japan 

The most useful description of the events of this period will be found 
in the Annual Register.^ Dodd, Modern Constitutions, gives the Funda- 
mental Laws of the Russian Empire of May 6th, 1906, with useful 
notes. Harper, S. N., The Neio Electoral Law for the Russian Duma 
(Chicago, 1908), is an excellent description of the present electoral law. 
MiLYouKov, Paul, Russia and Its Crisis (Chicago, 1905), presents the 
Liberal theory of the crisis: a very instructive book, but confessedly 
one-sided. Victor Berard, The Russian Empire and Czarism, trans- 
lated by G. Fox-Davies and G. O. Pope (1905), has certain chapters 
describing the process of Russification attempted with the Poles, Jews, 
Finns, and Armenians. Other books that may be consulted are: 
Pares, B., Russia and Reform (1907); Nevinson, H. W., The Dawn in 
Russia (1906); Perris, G. H., Russia in Revolution (1905); Martin, R., 
The Future of Russia (1906). 

CHAPTER XXXII 

Certain Features of Modern Progress 

Interesting volumes treating briefly certain general features of the 
last century, literature, science, art, industry, transportation, etc., are: 
The Progress of the Century, by A. R. Wallace and others (1901); 
The Nineteenth Century: A Review of Progress (1901); Wallace, A. R., 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 771 

The Wonderful Century: Its Successes and Its Failures (1898). Day's 
History of Commerce (1907) treats liberally the nineteenth century, 
and has an admirable bibliography fully opening up the subject; 
CocHRAXE, Modern Industrial Progress (1904), is useful. 

Probably the most satisfactory general survey of the world to-day, 
from the political and economic point of view, is E. Driault, Le monde 
actuel (1909), an account of very recent history of the different coun- 
tries, and a description of present conditions and tendencies; clear, 
suggestive, interesting. Another book by the same author is Les 
problemes politiques et sociaux a la fin du XIX<^ siecle (1900). Vol. VII 
of Larned's History for Ready Reference is announced. It will cover 
the first decade of the twentieth century and ought to prove useful for 
recent history. 

On the peace movement: see, Holls, F. W., The Peace Conference at 
the Hague, and Its Bearings on International Law and Policy (1900); 
an account of the First Conference of 1899 by a member of the delega- 
tion of the United States; Hull, W. I., The Two Hague Conferences 
and Their Contributions to International Law (1908), a comparative 
study of the discussions and achievements of the Conferences of 1899 
and 1907, well arranged and clearly presented; Scott, J. B., The Hague 
Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, two elaborate and authoritative 
volumes (1909). Vol. I consists of lectures delivered at Johns Hopkins 
University by Scott, one of the delegates of the United States at the 
conference of 1907, lectures now much revised and enlarged; vol. II con- 
tains the oflBcial documents, the instructions to American delegates, 
their official reports, and the various texts drawn up at the Conferences 
and ratified by the participating powers; Higgins, A. P., The Hague 
Peace Conferences and the Other International Conferences Concerning 
the Laios and Usages of War (Cambridge University Press, 1909); 
Foster, J. W., Arbitration and the Hague Court (1904). 

For current history, the most useful aids are the various annuals 
published in different countries: in England, the Annual Register, pub- 
lished since 1758; in France, Viallate, A., La vie politique dans les deux 
mondes, since 1907; in Germany, Schiemanjj, T., Deutschland und die 
grosse Politik, since 1902; Glaser, F. W., Wirtschaftspolitische Annalen, 
since 1906; Schulthess, Europdischer Geschichtskalender, since 1860; 
Aegidi and Klauhold, Das Staatsarchiv. Sammlung der offiziellen 
Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte der Gegenwart, since 1861. Now edited by 

G. ROLOFF. 

An annual that seems likely to prove most useful is the Jahrbuch der 
Zeit- und Kultur geschichte, containing chapters on the political life of 
Germany and other countries, on the religious life, on economic, educa- 
tional, literary, and scientific matters, and on art and music. Edited by 
Dr. Franz Schnurer. The first volume, that concerning the year 1907, 
was published in Freiburg in 1908. 

Several special encyclopaedias are of importance to the student of 
history: Palgrave, Dictionary of Political Economy, 3 vols. (1900); 
CoxRAD, Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 7 vols. (2nd edit., 
1898-1901); Marquardsen, Handbuch des offentlichen Rechts der Gegeiv- 
wart in Monographien, 5 vols. (1883-1906). What amounts to a new 
edition is announced under the title Das offentliche Recht der Gegenwart. 
There are certain monographs of value to the historian in Staats-und 
sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungen, edited by Gustav Schmoller und 
Max Sering. 

The Statesman's Year Book is an indispensable source of varied 
statistical information, concerning all countries. On various aspects of 
government and politics: see, Goonxow, F. J., Comparative Administra- 
tive Law, 2 vols. (1893), a study of the administrative systems of 



772 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Germany, France, England, and the United States; Burgess, J. W., 

Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, 3 vols. (1890), a 
study of the governments of Germany, France, England, and the United 
States; Shaw, Albert, Municipal Government in Great Britain (1895), 
and Municipal Government in Continental Europe (1895); Munro, 
W. B., The Government of European Cities (1909); Meyer, G., Das 
parlamentarische Wahlrecht (1901), cliiefly an account of the suifrage 
in Europe in the nineteenth century; Lefevre-Pontalis, Les elections 
en Europe a la ftn du XIXe sibcle (1902), treats of the electoral qualifica- 
tions and modes of election in the various countries of Europe; 
Pyfferoen, O., L' electoral politique et administratif en Europe (1903), 
another account of the various electoral systems. 

Publications which will be found useful in the study of contemporary 
history, besides the more popular English and American reviews, such 
as the Fortnightly; Contemporary ; Nineteenth Century; Westminster; 
North American; Forum; Revieiv of Reviews; are: the Edinburgh Re- 
view; Quarterly Revieiv; National Revieiv; American Political Science 
Review; Political Science Quarterly; Yale Review; Annals of the 
American Academy; Economic Journal; Economic Review; Quarterly 
Journal of Economics; Socialist Review; Survey; Law Quarterly Re- 
view; American Journal of International Law; Revue des deux mondes; 
Revue de Paris; Revue bleue; Le Correspondant; Revue d'histoire 
diplom.atique; Revue politique et parlementaire ; Revue de droit inter- 
national et de legislation comparee; Archives diplomatique s; Revue de 
droit public et science politique; Annales des sciences politiques; 
Questions diplomatiques et coloniales; Revue g&nirale de droit inter- 
national public; Journal des ^conomistes; Revue d'Sconomie politique; 
Revue economique internalionale ; L'economiste franqais; Deutsche 
Rundschau; Preussische Jahrbiicher; Jahrbuch des offentlichen Rechts; 
Archiv fiir offentliches Recht; Zeitschrift fUr Volkerrecht und Bundes- 
staatsrecht. 



INDEX 



Abbas II, Khedive of Egypt, 558 

Abd-el-Kader, native leader in 
Algeria, 373 

Abdul Aziz, Sultan, recognizes the 
Union of Moldavia and Walla- 
chia, 1S62, 618; deposed March, 
1876, 621 

Abdul Hamid II, 1816-1909, ac- 
cession of, 621; war with Russia 
and Treaty of San Stefano, 623- 
624; cedes Thessalv to Greece 
(1881), 634; and Crete, 635; re- 
stores constitution of 1816, 63G, 
637; deposition of, 643 

Abdul Med j id. Sultan, and the 
Crimean War, 612-616 

Abyssinia, Italian war with, 382- 
3S4 

Accident Insurance Laws (Ger- 
many), 1881} and 1885, 316 

Achmet Agha, and the attack on 
Batak, 621-622 

Act of Federation (German), 
work of the Congress of Vienna, 
29-31 ; von Sybel's estimate of, 
32; unsatisfactory to Germans, 
32; Article XIII of, 35, 38 

Act of Union (1800), Great Brit- 
ain and Ireland, 497 

Adana, in Asia Minor, massacres 
in (1909), 642 

Adrianople, Treaty of (1829), 
611; entered by Russians 
(1818), 624; 642 

Afghanistan, war in, 490; protec- 
torate of England over, 523; as 
a buffer between India and Tur- 
kestan, 682 

Africa, German trading stations 
in, 318; German colonies in, 319; 
Senegal, French possession 
(1815) in, 371; French conquest 
of Algeria, 372; other French 
conquests in, 373-375; Western, 
374; Italian possessions in, 382; 
slavery in the English colonies 
of, 439, abolished, 440; war 
in South (1899-1902), 490, 512, 
529; British South Africa, 536- 



Africa, continued 

545; partition of, 550-563; period 
of discovery in, 550-551; situa- 
tion in (1815), 551; French con- 
quest of Algeria, 552; English 
explorations in, 552-553; Euro- 
pean appropriations of (1884- 
1890), 554; conference of the 
Powers concerning (1816), 554; 
International African Associa- 
tion, 554; Congo Free State, 554- 
557; Egypt, 557-563; Spanish pos- 
sessions in, 574; Portuguese pos- 
sessions in, 578; possessions of 
the Ottoman Empire (1815) in, 
601. See British South Africa, 
German East and German South- 
west Africa, Western Africa 

African Association, International, 
554; becomes International As- 
sociation of the Congo, 555 

Aix - la - Chapelle, Congress of 
(1818), 59; 75 

Alabama award, 486, 528, 591 

Albania, 602 

Albert Nyanza, 552 

Albert of Saxe-Coburg, Prince 
Consort, marriage of, to Queen 
Victoria (181,0), 445 

Albert I, King of Belgium, 
1909~, 583 

Alberta, admitted to the Dominion 
of Canada, 1905, 529 

Alessandria, 61 

Alexander of Battenberg (1819), 
Prince of Bulgaria, 628; abdi- 
cates, 630 

Alexander I, King of Servia, 1889- 
1903, murder of, 633 

Alexander I, Tsar of Russia, 1801- 
1825, and Bernadotte, 2; de- 
mands of, at the Congress of 
Vienna, 6; Treaty of Holy Al- 
liance, 14, 16; character of, 19; 
becomes conservative, 38, 40; 
and Charles X, 92; and the Bel- 
gian revolution, 104; and Poland 
(1815), 107, 647-648; reign of, 
645-650; training of, 646; posi- 



773 



774 



INDEX 



Alexander I, codtinued 

tion of, in 1815, 647; progressive 
domestic policy of, 648; liberal 
foreign policy of, 649; becomes 
reactionary (1820-1825), 108, 
649; death of (1825), 609, 650 

Alexander II, Tsar of Russia, 
1855-1881, attitude of, toward 
the Prussian annexations, 268 
and note; and the Congress of 
Berlin, 3i20; alliance of the Three 
Emperors, 321, 616; and the 
Crimean War, 616; attitude to- 
ward Turkey, 1876, 623; de- 
clares war against Turkey 
(1877), 623; accession and lib- 
eralism, 655; prevailing system 
of land tenure under, the mir, the 
serfs, 655-657; issues Edict of 
Emancipation (1861), 657; and 
the land problem, 657-660; estab- 
lishes zemstvos (186-i), 660; re- 
forms the judicial system, 661; 
other reforms of, 661; and the 
Polish insurrection of 1863, 662- 
663; and the Russification of 
Poland, 664-665; effect of the 
Polish insurrection upon, 665 ; be- 
comes reactionary, 665; rise of 
Nihilism under, 666-668; at- 
tempts upon the life of, 669; 
assassination of (1881), 670 

Alexander III, Tsar of Russia, 
1881-189ff, character and policy 
of, 670; influence of Pobyedo- 
nostseff upon, 670-671; persecu- 
tion of the Jews under, 672; 
progressive features of the reign 
of, 673; industrial revolution 
under, 673-674; appoints Sergius 
de Witte, Minister of Commerce 
and Finance (1892), his policy, 
674-675; rise of labor problems, 
675; rise of a rich bourgeoisie, 
675; death (1894), 676 

Alexander John I of Roumania, 
rule of, 618; abdicates, 619. See 
Couza 

Alexandria, 488, 559 

Alfonso XII, King of Spain, 1874- 
1885, becomes King, 572; and 
the Constitution of 1876, 573; 
death of, 574 

Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, 
born May 17, 1886, assumes 
power (1902), 575; marriage 
with Princess Ena of Batten- 
berg, 57S 



Algeria, 98, 275; Picquart sent to, 

359; in 1815, 551; French con- 
quest of, 372, 552 
Algiers, conquered by France, 

132, 372; in 1815, 602 
All of Janina, 602 
Alma, battle of the, 614 
Alsace, Germans invade, 296; ceded 

to Germany by the Treaties of 

Versailles and Frankfort, 300, 

303, 319, 337 
Amadeo of Savoy chosen King 

of Spain, 1870, 570; abdicates, 

571 
American Commonwealth, Bryce's, 

Censorship of, in Russia, 678 
Amoy, opened to British trade 

by treaty of Nanking (1842), 

685 
Amsterdam, 102 
Amur, Russia acquires northern 

bank of the, from China, 1858, 

682 
Ancona, seized by France, 111 
Andalusia, 49 

Anesthetics, discovery of, 720 
Anglican Church. See Church of 

England 
Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902, 

700 
Angouleme, Duke of, leads French 

army in the invasion of Spain, 

1823, 63; 79; renounces claim 

to the crown, 97 
Annam, French protectorate over 

(1883), 373, 374 
Anti-Corn-Law League (1839), 452 
Antiseptics, 720 
Apulia, Riots in (1889), 383 
Arabi Pasha, revolt of, crushed 

by England, 559 
Arabia, Ottoman Empire (1815) 

and, 601 
Arbitration, Permanent Court of, 

established (1899), 732, 736 
Ardahan, 626 
Argentina, Italian emigration to, 

386 
Argyll, Duke of, on the Land Act 

of 1881, 491 
Arkwright, 407, 722 
Armaments, Cost of, 728; Nicholas 

II and the limitation of, 729 
Armenia, Russia retains a part of 

Turkish, 626 
Army Reforms, in France (1818), 

76; (1872), 339; in Prussia, 248- 
249, 255; in England, 481-482; 



INDEX 



775 



Army Reforms, contvmied 

in Roumania, 632; in Turkey, 
643; in Japan, 693; in China, 
704 

Arndt, 43; restored to professor- 
ship, 150 

Artois, Count of (afterwards 
Charles X), leader of the Ultras 
in France in 1815, 72, 74, 79; 
heads the party of reaction in 
France, 80. See Charles X 

Ashley, Lord, and the child labor 
agitation, 442 

Asia, French possessions in, 374; 
Portuguese possessions in, 578; 
Dutch possessions in, 581; Otto- 
man Empire in (1815), 601; 
England, France, and Russia in, 
681 

Asia Minor, Mehemet Ali in, 131; 
part of the Ottoman Empire 
(1815), 601; massacres in 
(1909), 642 

Asquith, Herbert, leader of the 
Liberal Party since 1908, 515; 
and the Old Age Pensions Law, 
1908, 515; and the Irish Univer- 
sity or Birrell Act, 1908, 516 

Associations, Law of, 1901, 
(France), 366 

Associations of Worship (France), 
1905, 369; Pius X and, 369 

Athens, captured by the Turks, 
607; made capital of Greece, 634 

Auckland, 534 

Augustenburg, Duke of, 259-260 

Ausgleich or Austro-Hungarian 
Compromise of 1867, 393-396; 
renewed by arbitrary act of 
Francis Joseph I, 404 

Australasia, 534, 545 

Australia, Ballot system of, adopt- 
ed in England, 484; English pos- 
sessions in, prior to 1815, 519; 
early explorations in, 530; voy- 
ages of Captain Cook to, 531 ; 
as a convict colony, 531 ; dis- 
covery of gold in (1851 and 
1852), 244, 532; the Six Colonies 
of, 532; creation of the Common- 
wealth of (1890-1900), 533; the 
Federal Parliament in (1901), 
534; and the South African 
War, 544; autonomy in, 546; and 
the problem of Federation, 547- 
549; preferential tariffs, 548. 
See South Australia, Western 
Australia 



Austria, acquires Lombardy and 
Venetia by Treaty of Paris, 3; 
Emperor of, at Congress of 
Vienna, 4; acquisitions by Con- 
gress of Vienna, 8-9; Holy Alli- 
ance, 14; signs Quadruple Alli- 
ance, 17; lack of unity in, 23- 
25; policy of Francis I and 
Metternich, 25-28; importance in 
the Diet, 30; jealousy of Prus- 
sia, 34; importance of the Carls- 
bad Conference to, 43; domi- 
nance of, in Italy, 53; at Con- 
gress of Troppau, 59; invades 
Italy, 60, 61; at Congress of 
Verona, 62; recognizes the 
Kingdom of Belgium, 105; 
and tlie revolution in Poland, 
106-110; intervention in the 
Papal States, 111; and the 
revolution in Germany (1830), 
112; and Turkish affairs, 132; 
and the London Conference 
(1840), 132; and the Zollverein, 
149; 1815-18/,8, 152-159; acces- 
sion of Ferdinand I, 152; the in- 
dustrial revolution in, 153; de- 
velopment of nationalities within 
the Empire — Bohemia, 153; 
Hungary, 154-159; and Young 
Italy, 163-166; Pius IX protests 
against occupation of Ferrara by, 
166; Kossuth's speech against, 
169; accepts Hungarian plan of 
autonomy, 171; grants auton- 
omy to Bohemia, 172; Constitu- 
tion for the Empire granted, 
172; revolution in Lombardy- 
Venetia, 172; Italy renounces 
the control of, 173; March 
(18Jf8) revolutions triumphant 
in, 174; begins the work of res- 
toration, 175; riots in Prague, 
175; conquers Bohemia, 175; 
partially conquers Italy, 175; ex- 
ploits the situation in Hungary, 
177; Ferdinand declares Hun- 
garian Diet dissolved, 178; out- 
break in Vienna, 178; flight of 
Ferdinand to Olmiitz, 178; 
Windischgriitz conquers Vienna, 
178; abdication of Ferdinand 
and accession of his nephew 
Francis Joseph I, who retracts 
the March Laws, 179; war with 
Hungary, 179; conquers Hun- 
gary, 180; completes conquest 
of Italy, 181; crushes Lom- 



776 



INDEX 



Austria, continued 

bardy, 181; overthrows Sar- 
dinian army at Novara, 181; 
surrender of Venice to, 182; re- 
jects the work of the Frankfort 
Parliament, 185 ; the " humiliation 
of Olmlitz," 185; restores Diet of 
Frankfort (1851), 185; reaction 
in Italy after ISIfS, 215; indicted 
at Congress of Paris by Cavour, 
220 ; conspiracy against, at Plom- 
bieres, 223; Austro-Sardinian 
war, 225; defeated at battles 
of Magenta and Solferino, 225; 
peace concluded with France and 
Sardinia at Villafranca, 225; to 
be a member of the projected 
Italian Confederation, 228; re- 
action in, 1850-1859, 240; Bis- 
marck's attitude toward, 253 and 
254; with Prussia declares war 
against Denmark, 258; secures 
Schleswig-Holstein and Lauen- 
burg in conjunction with Prussia 
by the Treaty of Vienna (186It), 
259, 593; convention of Gastein, 
259; war with Prussia, 263; vic- 
tories of Custozza and Lissa, 265; 
defeated by Prussia at Konig- 
griitz, 265; causes of defeat of, 
2Q5; terms of peace with Prus- 
sia, 267; cedes Venetia to Italy, 
267; neutrality of, in Franco- 
German war, 294; Austro-Ger- 
man treaty of 1819, 321; Triple 
Alliance (1882), 321, 382; Aus- 
tria to the Compromise of 1861, 
388-396 ; punishment of Hungary 
(1849), 388; constitution of 
1849 revoked, 388; failure of the 
war in Italy (1859), 389; forced 
to cede Lombardy to Piedmont, 
389; becomes a constitutional 
state, 390; Hungary refuses to 
cooperate with, and demands the 
restoration of her constitution of 
18.',8, 390-392; deadlock with 
Hungary, 1861-1865, 393; Francis 
Joseph I yields, 393 ; Compromise 
of 1861, 393-396; constitution of, 
395; Germans the dominant race 
in, 395; divisive effect of the 
principle of nationality in, 396; 
Empire of, since 1861, 396-402; 
liberal legislation in, since 1861, 
396-397; demands of the Czechs, 
397; opposition of Austrian Ger- 
mans and Magj^ars, 398; elec- 



Austria, continued 
toral reform in, 399; composi- 
tion of the Reichsrath, 399; the 
Taaffe ministry, 1819-1893, 400; 
Slavs favored, 400; social legis- 
lation, 400; Workingmen's In- 
surance, 400; division among the 
Czechs, 401; fall of tlie Taaffe 
ministry, 401 ; electoral reform 
(1896), 401; universal suffrage 
established (1901), 402; signs 
Treaty of Paris (1856), 616; 
joins England in demanding a 
revision of the Treaty of San 
Stefano, 635; by Congress of 
Berlin, 1818, invited to " oc- 
cupy and administer " Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, 320, 626; stops 
war between Bulgaria and 
Servia, 629 ; secret treaty with 
Russia, 640; attitude of, toward 
the breaches of the Berlin Treaty 
(1818), 629, 640. See Austria- 
Hungary 

Austria-Hungary, since 18^9, 
388-405; Ausgleich, 393; the 
Delegations, 394; divisive effect 
of the principle of nationality in, 
396; and Bosnia and Herzego- 
vina, 404-405; at the Conference 
of the Powers ^-^876;, 554; at 
the Congress of Berlin (1884- 
1885), 555; annexes Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, 1908, 639-640, 644 

Austro-German Treaty (1819), 321. 

Austro-Hungarian War (1849), 
179-180 

Austro-Prussian War (1866), 263- 
267 

Austro-Sardinian War (1859), 
225-227 

Azeglio. See D'Azeglio 

Azores, part of the Kingdom of 
Portugal, 578 

Baden, granted constitution 
(1818), 37; supports Austria in 
the war of 1866, 263; joins Prus- 
sia in the Franco-German War 
(1810), 294 

Baker, Sir Samuel, English ex- 
plorer, discovers one source of 
the Nile, 552 

Bakounine, and Socialism, 667 

Balaklava, battle of, 614 

Balbo, Cesare, 1189-1853, author 
of "Hopes of Italy" (1844), 
165 



INDEX 



777 



Balfour, Arthur James, Chief 
Secretary for Ireland during the 
Second Salisbury Ministry 
(1SS6-1S92), policy of coercion 
in Ireland, 505; becomes Prime 
Minister (1902), 511; on the 
death of Queen Victoria, 513 

Balkan Peninsula, events in, 1S76- 
1S7S, 320; 1815, part of the Ot- 
toman Empire, 601 

Balkan States, Rise of, 601-644 

Ballot, Introduction of, in Eng- 
land by Ballot Law of 1872, 483; 
Lord Palmerston on, 483; Glad- 
stone on, 483; Morley on, 483 

Baltic Provinces of Russia, 645, 
Russification of, 672 

Baluchistan, England and, 523 

Bangweolo, Lake, discovered by 
Livingstone, 552 

Baratieri, Italian General, defeat- 
ed by Menelek, 383 

Barbary States, 372-373 

Barcelona, 49 

Bardine, Sophie, 668 

Baring, Sir Evelyn, later Lord 
Cromer, communication to, from 
Lord Granville concerning Eng- 
land's position in Egypt, 560 

Bashi-Bazouks, in the Bulgarian 
Atrocities, 621 

Batak, atrocities in, 621-622 

Batoum, 626 

Battenberg, Princess Ena of, mar- 
ries Alfonso XIII of Spain 
(1906), 575; Alexander of, 
chosen Prince of Bulgaria 
(1879), 628 

Baudin, republican deputy, 281 

Bavaria, King of, at Congress of 
Vienna, 4; importance of, in the 
Diet, 30; granted constitution 
(1818), 37; economic growth of, 
1849-1858, 244; supports Austria 
in the War of 1866, 263; army 
of, defeated at Kissingen, 265; 
joins Prussia in the Franco- 
Prussian War, 294; becomes 
part of the German Empire, 301 ; 
Louis I and the Greek War of 
Independence, 608; 611 

Bazaine, 295; commander at Metz, 
296 

Beaconsfield, Lord. See Disraeli 

Beauharnais, Eugene, 51 

Beauharnais, Hortense (daughter 
of the Empress Josephine), 127 

Bebel, Socialist leader, 313 



Belfast, 484; university at, for 
Protestants, 516 

Bel fort, 295 

Belgium, annexed to Holland, 3, 
5; rise of the Kingdom of, 101- 
106; difficulties concerning the 
constitution, 102-103; influence of 
the July Revohition in (1830), 
103-104; the Belgians declare 
their independence, 104; Leo- 
pold of Coburg elected King of, 
104; recognition of the King- 
dom of, 105; and Congo Free 
State, 554-557, 583; reign of 
Leopold I of (1831-1865), 581- 
582; reign of Leopold II 
(1865-1909), 582; extension of 
tlie suffrage (1893), 582; estab- 
lishes trade centers at the five 
treaty ports of China, 686 

Belgrade, capital of Servia, 604 

Bell, Alexander Graham, invents 
the telephone (1876), 726 

Benedek, Austrian commander 
(1866), 264' 

Benedetti, French ambassador to 
Prussia, interview with the King 
of Prussia at Ems, 291-292 

Bengal, 519, 520 

Bentham, Jeremy, 417 

Beresford, Lord, in Portugal, 575 

Berlin, news of the Revolution of 
18.'t8 in Paris reaches, 152; revolu- 
tionary movement of March, 
18^8, in, 173; police regulation 
of 1851 in, 241 ; becomes the 
capital of united Germany, 302; 
representation in the Reichstag, 
325, 327; representation in the 
Prussian Parliament, 326; Con- 
gress of 1881,-1885, 555; Berlin 
Act, 1885, 555-556; Memoran- 
dum, 1876, 620; Congress of, 
1878, 320, 405, 625-626 

Berlin Act of 1885, 555; Leopold 
II and, 556 

Berlin Conference, 1881,-1885, con- 
cerning Congo Free State, 555 

Berlin Congress of 1878, 320, 
405, 625-6260. the Powers do 
not prevent the ' breaches in 
the Berlin Treaty, 629, 640, 644 

Berlin Memorandum, 1876, 626 

Bern, 584; chosen capital of 
Switzerland, 1S.',8, 587 

Bernadotte, Crown Prince of 
Sweden, 2; sent into Norway, 
595. See Charles XIV 



778 



INDEX 



Bernhardi, 243 

Berry, Duchess of, 94, 122-123 

Berry, Duke of, Murder of, 79; 
birth of posthumous son, 82, 97 

Bessarabia, retained by Russia at 
Congress of Vienna, 8; part of, 
ceded to Moldavia by Treaty of 
Paris (1856), 615; Russia recov- 
ers a part of, 616; ceded to 
Russia by Treaty of San Stef- 
ano, 1818, 625; cession of, reaf- 
firmed by Congress of Berlin, 
1818, 626 

Bethmann-Hollweg, German Chan- 
cellor, July, 1909 , 323 

Biarritz, Interview at (1865), 260 

Birrell Act, 1908, 516 

Bismarck, Otto von, 224, 242, 243; 
and German Unity, 240-271 ; ap- 
pointed President of the Minis- 
try, 1862, 250; previous career, 
251; political opinions of, 251; 
attitude toward parliamentary 
institutions, 252; hatred of de- 
mocracy, 253; in the Diet, 254; 
attitude toward Austria, 253 and 
254; carries through the army 
reform, 255; policy of "blood 
and iron," 255; diplomacy con- 
cerning Schleswig-Holstein, 257; 
and the Convention of Gastein, 
259-260; conference with Na- 
poleon III at Biarritz (1865), 
260; 286; treaty of alliance with 
Italy, 261 ; proposes a reform of 
the confederation, 262; orders 
Prussian troops to enter Holstein, 
263; at Koniggratz, 265; and the 
Prussian Parliament, 268; author 
of the constitution of the North 
German Confederation, 268-270; 
forms alliance with South Ger- 
man States, 270; the consolida- 
tion of the new system, 270; 
attitude toward Napoleon Ill's 
projects for the acquisition of 
territory, 1866-1861, 288; and 
the candidacy of Prince Leopold, 
290-292; the Ems despatch, 292; 
diplomacy of, completely isolates 
France, 294; arranges terms 
of peace with Thiers at 
Versailles, 300; German unifica- 
tion completed, 301; becomes 
Chancellor, 305; and the Kultur- 
kampf, 306-310; and the Falk 
Laws, 308; and the policy of pro- 
tection, 310-312; and Socialism, 



Bismarck, Otto von, continued 
312-318; policy of State Social- 
ism and measures carried, 316; 
his contribution to the solution 
of the social question, 317; So- 
cialists fail to cooperate with, 
317; and the acquisition of 
colonies, 318-319; and the Triple 
Alliance, 319-320; and the 
Austro-German treaty of 1819, 
321; resigns (1890), 323; death 
of (1898), 323; 594; President 
of the Congress of Berlin, 1818, 
625 

Black Sea, neutralized by Treaty 
of Paris (1856), 615; Russia dis- 
regards neutrality of, 616 

Blanc, Louis, Theories of, 138, 189; 
143; in the Provisional Govern- 
ment, 188; conception of the Re- 
public, 188; appointed head of 
the Labor Commission, 191-192 

"Bloc," The, 364 

Bloemfontein, 538; convention of, 
538; conferences at, 1899, 543 

Bliicher, on the Congress of 
Vienna, 11 

Board Schools (England), estab- 
lished, 479; boards abolished, 514 

Boer War, 1899-1902, 512. See 
British South Africa 

Boers, migration of, into Natal, 
537; and the founding of the 
Transvaal, 538; at Majuba Hill, 
539; and the Pretoria Conven- 
tion, 1881, 540; and the Lon- 
don Convention, 1884, 540; de- 
sire unqualified independence, 
540; and the Uitlanders, 541; Sir 
Alfred Milner on, 542; and the 
South African War, 543 

Bohemia, a part of the Austrian 
Empire, 23; condition of the 
peasants in, 26; development of 
nationality in, Czech movement, 
153; revolution in, 171, 388; in- 
vasion of, by Prussia (1866), 265; 
position in the Empire (1861), 
390; demands of the Czechs 
(1868), 397; concessions to 
Czechs in, 400; division among 
Czechs in, 401 

Bokhara, 682 

Bologna, insurrection in, 18S1, 110 

Bombay, English possession, 519 

Bonapartists (France), 127, 344 

Bordeaux, Napoleon Ill's speech 
at, 213; seat of government dur- 



INDEX 



779 



Bordeaux, continued 

ing a part of the siege of Paris, 
298; French National Assembly 
meets at (1871), 300,339; Treaty 
of Frankfort ratified by Assem- 
bly at, 301 

Bordeaux, Duke of, 97, 98, 117, 
122. See also Count of Cham- 
bord 

Borneo, 581 

Borny, Germans defeat French 
at, 296 

Bosnia, occupied by Austria, 320; 
Slavs of, aid Herzegovina 
(1875), 620; annexed by Aus- 
tria-Hungary (1908), 404, 639- 
640 

Botany Bay, 531 

Botha, Louis, in the South Afri- 
can War, 543 

Boulanger, General, Minister of 
War (1886), ambition of, 356; 
trial and flight of, 357 

Boulogne, Louis Napoleon at, 129, 
199 

Bourbon, now called Reunion, 
Island of, owned by France, 
1815, 371 

Bourbons, Restoration of, 2, 66-99, 
119; Bourbon line in Spain, 505, 
569 

Bourgeois, Emile, address at the 
First Peace Conference at the 
Hague (1899), 731 

Bourmont, Minister of War, 90 

"Boxer " movement, 1900, 698 

Brandenburg, 251 

Brazil, flight of the royal family 
of Portugal to, 1807, 575; Dom 
Pedro regent of, 576; declared 
an independent empire under 
Dom Pedro I, 1822, 576; rec- 
ognized bv Portugal, 1825, 
576 

Bremen, member of North Ger- 
man Confederation, 268; mem- 
ber of German Empire, 304; 
merchants from, establish trad- 
ing stations, 318 

Briand, Minister of Public Wor- 
ship, and the enforcement of the 
Law of 1905, 370 

Bright, John, and the Anti-Corn- 
Law League, 452; on the Irish 
Famine (18J,5), 453; and the Re- 
form Bill of 1867, 463; in the 
Gladstone Ministry, 1868, 465; 
the Bright clauses in the Irish 



Bright, John, continued 

Land Act of 1870, 475; on the 
Forster Education Act of 
1870, 481; attitude toward 
Irish University Bill of 1873, 
485; opposition to the Irish 
Home Rule and Land Bills, 
503; becomes a Liberal Unionist, 
504 

Brisson Ministry, and the Dreyfus 
case, 360-363 

British Columbia, responsible gov- 
ernment granted to, 1871, 527; 
admitted into the Dominion of 
Canada, 1871, 529 

British Empire. See England 

British Empire in the Nineteenth 
Century, The, 518-549 

British North America, 523-530; 
Act (1867), 528 

British South Africa, 536-545; 
England acquires Cape Colony, 
536; friction with the Boers, 
537; the Great Trek, 1836 — , 
537; founding of the Transvaal, 
538; Transvaal annexed to Great 
Britain, 1877, 538; Majuba Hill, 
539; Pretoria Convention, 1881, 
540; London Convention, 1884, 
540; discovery of gold in the 
Transvaal, 1884, 541 ; Jameson 
Raid, 1895, 541 ; Sir Alfred Mil- 
ner's Reports on, 1899, 542; 
South African War, 1899-1902, 
543-544; annexation of the Trans- 
vaal and the Orange Free State 
to the British Empire, 1902, 544; 
Union of South Africa, 1909, 
544-545; autonomy in, 546; and 
the problem of imperial federa- 
tion, 547 

Broglie, Achille Charles, Duke of, 
87, 120, 130 

Broglie, Jacques Victor, ministry 
of, 349 

Brougham, Lord Chancellor, 436 

Brunswick, revolutionary move- 
ments in (1830), 112; 147; in 
the North German Confedera- 
tion, 269 

Brussels, 102; riot in (1830), 104; 
seat of the International African 
Association, 554 

Bryce, James, on the advan- 
tages of federation to the Aus- 
tralians, 533; American Com- 
monwealth, censorship of, in 
Russia, 678 



INDEX 



Bucharest, capital of Roumania, 
618; Treaty of, 1886, 629 

Budapest, 171, 177, 394, 395 

Bukharest. See Bucharest 

Bulgaria, Slavs of, aid Herzego- 
vina, 1875, 620; atrocities in, 
1876, 621; siege of Plevna, 623; 
by Treaty of San Stefano, 1878, 
made a self-governing state trib- 
utary to the Sultan, 624; ter- 
ritory of, 624; disposition of, by 
Congress of Berlin, 1878, 625; 
since 1878, 626-631; Alexander 
of Battenberg chosen Prince of, 
1879, 628; friction between the 
Bulgarians and the Russians, 
628; Union of the two Bul- 
garias, 1885, 626, 629; Servia de- 
clares war upon, 629; expels the 
Servians, 629; Treaty of Bucha- 
rest, 1886, 629; abdication of 
Prince Alexander, 630; election 
of Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg 
(1887), 630; dictatorship of 
StambulofF, 630; election of 
Ferdinand recognized by the 
Powers, 631 ; declares her inde- 
pendence, October 5, 1908, 631, 
639, 644; attitude toward Tur- 
key, 1908, 641 ; and armed peace, 
732 

" Bulgarian Horrors and the Ques- 
tion of the East," by Gladstone, 
622 

Bulgars, The, 603 (note) 

Buliguin, 710 

Billow, von, German Chancellor, 
1900-1909, 323 

Bundesrath, 269, 303-304 

Bunsen, 242 

Burke, Thomas, assassinated 
(1882), 499 

Burma, annexed by England, 523; 
English control of, 681 

Burschenschaft, The, 39-42 

Bute, 412 

Butt, first leader of the Irish 
Home Rulers, 498 

Buxton, and the anti-slavery agita- 
tion, 440 

Byron, Lord, and the Greek War 
of Independence, 608 

" Cadets," Constitutional Demo- 
cratic Party in Russia, 713 

Cadiz, 48; meeting of Cortes at, 
63; siege of, 63 

Cairo, 559 



Cambodia, Kingdom of, France es- 
tablishes protectorate over, 373 

Cambridge, local government in 
(1832), 443; University of, 415, 
485 

Cameron, African explorer, 553 

CampbeU-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 
leader of the Liberal Party, 
1905-1908, 515 

Canada, an English possession 
(1815), 519; constitutional diffi- 
culty in Upper and Lower, 523- 
525; rebellion of 18S7 in, 446, 
525; the Durham Mission and 
Report on, 525-527; fusion of 
Upper and Lower (1840), 527; 
introduction of ministerial re- 
sponsibility in (1847), 527; 
founding of Dominion of 
(1867), 528; Parliament of the 
Dominion of, 529; growth of the 
Dominion of, 529; Dominion of, 
purchases Hudson Bav Terri- 
tory (1869), 529; Alberta and 
Saskatchewan admitted into the 
Dominion (1905), 529; relation 
of, to England, 529; Canadian 
Pacific Railway, 530; and the 
South African 'war (1899), 544; 
autonomy in, 546; and the prob- 
lem of federation, 547; preferen- 
tial tariffs, 548 

Canary Islands, relation of, to 
Spain, 574 

Canning, 64-65; Foreign Secretary 
(1822), 422; detaches England 
from Holy AUiance, 423; recog- 
nizes independence of the Span- 
ish colonies in America, 423; and 
Catholic Emancipation, 426; and 
the Greek War of Independence, 
608, 610 

Canovas, leader of the Conserva- 
tives in Spain, 1876, 573 

Canton, 684, 685, 686 

Cape Colony, retained by Eng- 
land, 1815, 9, 536, 551; responsi- 
ble government granted to, 1872, 
528; the Great Trek, 537; 542; 
and the South African War, 
1899, 544 

Cape of Good Hope, 488; acquired 
by England, 519; position in the 
South African Union, 1909, 544- 
545 

Cape Town, 545 

Caprivi, German Chancellor, 1890- 
1894, 323 



INDEX 



781 



Capua, 236; Francis II defeated 
at, 237 

Carbonari, in France, 91, 95; in 
Italy, 56, 110, 159, 161, 222 

Carlists, Wars of the, 566-568, 572 

Carlos, Don, claim to the throne 
of Spain, 565; Carlist war, 566 

Carlos I of Portugal, 1S89-1906, 
577; assassinated, 1908, 577 

Carlotta, wife of Maximilian, 
Archduke of Austria, 279 

Carlsbad Decrees, 41-44, 112 

Carlstad, Treaty of, 1905, 599-600 

Carlyle, on Queen Victoria's acces- 
sion, 445; on Chartism, 450; on 
the Reform Bill of 1S67, 464; on 
the Great Western, 724 

" Carmen Sylva," Queen Elizabeth 
of Roumania, 619 

Carnot, becomes President of the 
French Republic (1887), 355; 
assassinated (189Jt), 358 

Caroline Islands, purchased by 
Germany from Spain (1899), 319 

Carrara, 223 

Cartwright, 407, 722 

Casimir-P^rier, on the Press in 
France, 88; and the conserva- 
tives, 120-122, 130; elected 
President of the French Repub- 
lic (lS9-'t), 358; resigns, 358 

Cassel, 264 

Castelar, on the establishment of 
a republic in Spain, 571 ; 572 

Castelfidardo, battle of, 236 

Castille, 565; Carlists in, 567 

Castlereagh, 15 

Catherine II of Russia, 601 

Catholic Church (Roman) and the 
government of Rome after 1815, 
55; the religion of the state in 
France (181-'f), 69; French ex- 
pedition to Rome (18.'i9), 182; 
abolition of the temporal power 
of the Pope of, 301 ; struggle 
with the German Empire, 305; 
and the Kulturkampf, 306-310; 
dogma of Papal Infallibility in, 
307; the Old Catholics, 307; 
and the Falk Laws, 308-309 ; and 
the Third Republic, 349; question 
of, and State in France, 365; 
I>aw of Associations (1901) in 
France, 366; religious orders for- 
bidden to engage in teaching in 
France, 366; and the Concordat 
of 1801, 367; anticlerical legis- 
lation in France, 1881-1903, 367; 



Catholic Church (Roman), con- 
tinued 

attitude of the clergy of, in the 
Dreyfus affair, 368; Pius X 
protests against the visit of 
President Loubet of France to 
Victor Emmanuel III, 368; and 
the abrogation of the Concordat, 
368; and the Associations of 
Worship in France (1905), 369; 
Pius X and the Associations, 369; 
French Law of January 2, 
1907, 370; separation of, and 
State in France, 370; relation 
of, and State in Italy, 378; 
Law of Papal Guarantees, 378; 
the Curia Romana, 379; powers 
of, restricted in Austria, 396- 
397; in Spain, 575; in Belgium, 
583 

Catholic Emancipation (England), 
1829, 428 

Cavaignac, Jacques Marie Eugene, 
son of Louis Eugfene Cavaignac, 
Minister of War, 360; speech of, 
concerning the Dreyfus case, 361 

Cavaignac, General Louis Eugene, 
99; Dictatorship of, during the 
June Days, 194; candidate for 
the presidency of the republic, 
199 

Cavendish, Lord Frederick, assas- 
sinated, 499 

Cavite, battle of, 574 

Cavour, Count Camillo di, and the 
Creation of the Kingdom of 
Italy, 215-239; and Napoleon 
III, 215-227; early life, 216; his 
interest in political and economic 
questions, 217; becomes an edi- 
tor, 217; prime minister (1852), 
217; polic}^ of economic develop- 
ment, 218; Crimean policy, 219; 
at the Congress of Paris, 220; 
and army reform, 221; interview 
at Plombi^res with Napoleon 
III, 222; Austro-Sardinian War, 
225; displeasure at the terms of 
Villafranca and resignation, 227; 
returns to office, 230; bargain 
with Napoleon III concerning 
Savoy and Nice, 230-232; policy 
concerning Garibaldi's expedi- 
tion, 234-237; and the question of 
Rome and the Kingdom of Italy, 
238; death of, 239; characteriza- 
tion of, 239; on problems con- 
fronting the new kingdom, 376, 



782 



INDEX 



Cavour, Count Camillo dl, con- 
tinued 

377; attitude toward the Roman 
Catholic Church, 378; 387 

Cawnpore, 521 

Central Europe, between two Revo- 
lutions, 14,5-168; in Revolt, 169- 
186 

Certain Features of Modem 
Progress, 719-736 

Ceylon, English possession (1815), 
9, 519; 559 

Chalons, MacMahon retreats to, 296 

Chamberlain, Joseph, becomes a 
Liberal-Unionist, 504; and the 
Second Home Rule Bill, 509; in 
the Colonial Office, 511; and im- 
perialism, 511; and preferential 
duties, 54S; and the Colonial 
conferences, 548 

Chambord, Count of (Duke of 
Bordeaux), grandson of Charles 
X, 97; and the Legitimists, 341, 
342 

Charles Albert, Prince of Cari- 
gnan, 61 ; King of Piedmont, 164, 
166; reforms of, 167; defeated at 
Custozza, 176; abdication of, 181; 
death of, 182; grants Constitu- 
tional Statute (1848), 185, 215 

Charles Felix, 61-62 

Charles I of Roumania, 1866 — ; 
reign of, 619-620, 632 

Charles IV of Spain, 565 

Charles X, King of France ^-^82^- 
1830), reign of, 83-97; policy of, 
83-89; defeat of Villele's minis- 
try, 89; Martignac ministry, 89; 
Polignac ministry, 90-91 ; con- 
flict with the Chamber of Depu- 
ties, 91; dissolves the Chamber, 
91; Ordinances of July (1830), 
92; his interpretation of the 
Charter, 93; and the July Revo- 
lution, 95; abdicates, 97; retires 
to England, 97; death of 
(1836), 98. See also Artois, 
Count of 

Charles XIII, King of Norway and 
Sweden, adopts Bernadotte, as 
Crown Prince, 596; 598 

Charles XIV, 1S18-18U, King of 
Norway and Sweden, reign of, 
596-597. See Bernadotte 

Charles XV, King of Norway and 
Sweden, 1859-1872, Constitution 
of 1866, 597 

Chartist Movement, 446-450 



Chateaubriand, 88; and the Greek 
War of Independence, 608 

Child Labor (England), 440-442; 
Factory Act (1833) regulating, 
442; Labor in Mines Act, 455- 
456; Factory Act (18U), 456; 
Factory and Workshop Con- 
solidation Act of 1878, 456-457; 
Factory and Workshop Act of 
1901, 457; 506 

China, 518; Russia acquires the 
northern bank of the Amur 
(1858) and the Maritime Prov- 
ince (1860) from, 682; civiliza- 
tion of, 683; government of, 684; 
isolation of, 684; Opium War, 
18JiO-18J,.2, 685; signs Treaty of 
Nanking (1842) opening four 
ports to British trade, 685; 
entrance of various powers into 
commercial relations with, 686; 
France joins England in war 
against, 686; Treaties of Tientsin 
(185S), 686; confirmed (1860), 
687; Japan's war with (1894), 
695 ; signs Treaty of Shimonoseki 
(1895), 696; intervention of 
Russia, France, and Germany in, 
696; Russia secures rights in 
Manchuria from, 697; Germany 
establishes a " sphere of influ- 
ence" in (1898), 697; the 
" Boxer " movement in (1900), 
698; influence of the Russo- 
Japanese War upon, 703; reform 
in, 704; promise of constitution 
to, 705 

Chino-Japanese War, 1894, 695-696 

Chios, Turkish massacre in, 607 

Christian Frederick, elected King 
of Norway, May 17, 1814, abdi- 
cates October 7, 1814, 596 

Christian VIII, King of Denmark, 
1839-1848, 593 

Christian IX, King of Denmark, 
1863-1906, succeeds Frederick 
VII, 257; and Schleswig-Hol- 
stein, 593; war with Prussia and 
Austria and Treaty of Vienna 
(1864), 259, 593; revision of 
Constitution of 1849 (1866), 594 

Christiania, capital of Norway, 596 

Christina, wife of Ferdinand VII 
of Spain, Regent of Spain, 
1833-1840, 566; grants the 
Royal Statute, 1834, 567; pro- 
mulgates the Constitution of 
1837, 568; driven into exile, 568 



INDEX 



783 



Church of England, position of, in 
England (1S15), 415; abuses 
within, 416; religious disabilities 
of Dissenters from, 424; posi- 
tion of, in Ireland, 468; schools 
of, 477; tests of, in universities 
(England) abolished, 483; vol- 
untary schools connected with, 
513-514. See Irish Church 

Churchill, Lord Randolph, and the 
Second Home Rule Bill, 509 

Cisleithania, 395. See Austria 

Civil Service reform in England, 
483; of India, 522 

Civil War (United States), Eng- 
land and, 461, 486 

Clare, County of, O'Connell elect- 
ed to Parliament from, 427 

Clarendon, Lord, on the Italian 
question, 220; in the Gladstone 
ministry of 1S68, 465 

Clausewitz, on German unity, 34 

Clemenceau, leader of the Radi- 
cals, 354 

Clericalism, 349 

Clotilde, Princess, betrothed to 
Prince Jerome Napoleon, 223 

Coalition, The Great, 1, 592; 
treaties of, 2 

Cobbett, William, and "The Week- 
ly Political Register," 419; 
driven into exile, 431 

Cobden, Richard, and the Anti- 
Corn-Law League, 453 

Coburg, I^opold of, elected King 
of Belgium, 104 

Cochin-China, acquired by France 
(1858-1867), 373 

Collectivism, Growth of, 458. See 
Socialism 

Colonial Conferences (British), 
1887, 1897, 1902, 1907, 548 

Colonies, of Belgium, Congo Free 
State (1908), 557; of Denmark, 
in Africa (1815), 551; (1909), 
594-595; of France (1815), 371, 
551 ; acquisitions in the nine- 
teenth century, 353-354, 371-375, 
554; in Asia, 681; of Germany, 
in Africa, 319, 554; of Great 
Britain (1815), 3, 9, 519, 551; 
slavery abolished in (1834), 440; 
the Disraeli Ministry and, 487; 
India, 519-523; British North 
America, 523-530; Australia, 530- 
534; New Zealand, 534-536; 
British South Africa, 536-545; 
other African possessions, 552- 



Colonies, continued 

554, 562; Egypt, 554, 561; in 
Asia, 681; of Holland (1815), 
551; (1909) 581; of Italy, 382- 
383, 554; of Portugal (1815), 
551 ; acquisitions in Africa 
(18SJt-1890), 554; possessions of, 
578; of Spain (1815), 551; 
loses American (1898), 565, 574; 
possessions of (1898), 574 

Combes, Prime Minister (France), 
attitude toward clericalism, 366 

Commonwealth of Australia. See 
Australia 

Commonwealth of Australia Con- 
stitution Act, The (1900), 533 

Commune of Paris, The (1871) 
conditions in Paris prior to, 330- 
333; government of, 333; and 
the National Assembly, 334-335; 
cost of insurrection to France, 
337 

Concert of Powers, at Congress of 
Vienna, 16; signs Quadruple Al- 
liance, 17; Turkey admitted to, 
616 

Concordat of 1801, 367; abrogated 
(1905), 368 

Confederation of the Rhine, a Na- 
poleonic creation, 29 

Congo Free State, founded by Leo- 
pold II of Belgium, 554; rela- 
tion of, to Leopold II, 555-557; 
conditions in, 1905, 557; declared 
a colony by Belgium, 1908, 557; 

Congo, International Association 
of the, 555 

Congo River, 552; Stanley's ex- 
plorations of, 553 

Congress of Berlin (1878), 625- 
627 ; and the Greek frontier, 635 ; 
breaches of the Treaty of Ber- 
lin, 639, 640, 644 

Congress of Paris (1856), 212, 220, 
615-616 

Congress of Vienna (September, 
iSi-}-June, 1815) Membership of, 
3-5; demands of Russia and 
Prussia at, 6-7; Secret Treaty 
of Defensive Triple Alliance con- 
cluded at, 7; division of the 
spoils by, 7-10; criticism of, 10; 
and the German Confederation, 
29, 33, 35, 38; Final Act of, 4, 
12; and Italy, 52, 230; and the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands, 
101; and Belgium, 105; and Po- 
land, 106; and the Pact of 1815 



784 



INDEX 



Congress of Vienna, continued 
(Switzerland), 584; and Greece, 
605; Alexander I at, 647, 649; 
compared with the Hague Peace 
Conference, 736 

Congresses, The (see also Congress 
of Vienna), Congress of Aix- 
ia-Chapelle (1818), 59, 649; 
Congress of Troppau (1820), 
59; Congress of Laibach (1821), 
60i Congress of Verona (1822), 
62-63 

Constantine, brother of Alexander 
I of Russia, driven from War- 
saw, 108; renounces crown, 650 

Constantinople, 131, 557; in War 
of Greek Independence, 606; 
events in (1876), 620; Russians 
march toward, 611,624; counter- 
revolution of April, 1909, in, 64<2 

Constitution, of 1791 (French), 
46, 576; of 1812 (Spanish), 45- 
46, abolished, 47; of 1815 
(Switzerland), 584; of 1837 
(Spanish), 568; of 1848 (Hol- 
land), 580; of 1848 (Switzer- 
land), 586; of 1850 (Prussia), 
185-186; of 1866 (Norway and 
Sweden), 597; of 1875 (France), 
345, revision of (1884), 353; 
of 1876 (Spanish), 573 

Constitutional Charter, 1814 
(France), 67-70; change in, 82; 
Charles X's interpretation of, 
93; revised, 116 

Constitutional Statute (1848), 
Piedmont, Charles Albert grants, 
185 

Convention of Bloemfontein, 538 

Corfe Castle, 413 

Cork, College at, 484, 516 

Corn Laws (England), 449; of 
1815 and 1828, 451; repeal of, 
1846, 454, 469 

Cornwall, County of, representa- 
tion in House of Commons, 1815, 
411 

Corporation Act, Repeal of, 1828, 

4:25 

Cortes (Portuguese), 576 

Cortes (Spanish), Position of, un- 
der the Constitution of 1812, 46; 
retire to Cadiz on the invasion 
of the French (1823), 63; and 
the Constitution of 1837, 568; 
promulgate the Constitution of 
1869, 569-570; proclaim the Re- 
public (1873), 571 



Council of the Empire, The (Rus- 
sia), constituted by the Tsar, 
713 

County Councils Act of 1888, 506 

Courland, 645 

Cousin, 86 

Couza, Colonel Alexander, elected 
Prince by Moldavia and Wal- 
lachia (1859), 618; abdication 
of, 619 

Cowper-Temple Amendment to 
Forster Education Act of 1870, 
480 

Cracow, erected into a free city, 
8; Republic of, 106 

Crete, Island of, 612; disposition 
of 1897, 635 and note; Oct. 7, 
1908, declares for union with 
Greece, 639 

Crimea, War in, 611-617; reasons 
for Piedmont's participation in, 
219; England and, 458; inva- 
sion of the, 614; siege of Sebas- 
topol, 614; battles of the Alma, 
Balaklava, and Inkermann, 614; 
Treaty of Paris (1856), 615; re- 
sults of the war, 616; Russia in, 
654 

Crispi, Francesco, Prime Minister, 
1887-1891, 1893-1896, colonial 
policy, 382; policy of repression, 
383 

Croatia, Kingdom of, 24; a certain 
measure of autonomy in, 155; 
Jellachich appointed governor 
of, 177; severed from Hungary, 
388; position in the Empire 
(1861), 390; a province of 
Hungary, 396 

Croker, on Second Reform Bill, 
435 

Cromarty, 412 

Cromer, Lord, and Egj^pt, 560-561 

Crompton, 407, 722 

Cuba, Spanish possession, 565; in- 
surrections in, 1868-1878, 1895, 
572, 574; Spanish-American War 
in (1898), 574; Spain loses, 574 

Cumberland, Duke of, accession 
of, to throne of Hanover, 446 

Cunard, Samuel, founder of first 
transatlantic steamship line, 724 

Curasao, 581 

Curia Romana, 379 

Curtius, 246 

Cushing, Caleb, sent by the United 
States to make a commercial 
treaty with China, 1844, 686 



INDEX 



785 



Custozza, battle of (ISJfS) between 
Austrians and Sardinians, 176, 
181, 215; second battle of, 
(1866) between Austrians and 
Italians, 265 

Cyprus, 639, 643 

Czechs, in Bohemia, 153, 172, 175; 
demands of (1S68), 397; con- 
cessions to, under the Taaffe 
ministry, 400; division among, 401 

Dahomey, French possession, 374 

Daimios, The, of Japan, 689; and 
the policy of isolation, 690-691, 
692; relinquish their feudal 
rights, 693 

Danube, navigation of, declared 
free by Treaty of Paris (1856), 
615 

Danubian Principalities, Moldavia 
and Wallachia, become practi- 
cally independent, 611; Russian 
influence in, 611; Russian 
troops enter, 1853, 612; Russian 
evacuation of, 185J^, 614; de- 
clared under the suzerainty of 
the Porte by the Treaty ot 
Paris (1856), 615; the Rou- 
manians in, and the Crimean 
War, 617; elect Colonel Alexan- 
der Couza as their prince, 618; 
union of the Principalities, 
618. See Roumania 

Dawson, estimate of Bismarck's 
policy of State Socialism, 317 

Days of March, Hungary (18^8), 
170, 174 

Days of June, France (1848), 194, 
198 

D'Azeglio, 1798-1866, Author of 
" Recent Events in Romagna," 
165; and the question of Rome 
and the Kingdom of Italy, 238; 
on Italian unity, 376 

Deak, Francis, 158; leader of the 
moderate liberals in Hungary 
(1861), 391 

Decazes, Minister of Louis XVIII, 
75; and the Electoral Law, 77; 
forced to resign, 80 

Delarev, in the South African 
War!i 543 

Delhi, 521. 

Demerara, retained by England 
(1815), 9. 

Denmark, King of, at Congress of 
Vienna, 4; loses Norway, 11, 
592; King of, a member of the 



Denmark, continued 

German Confederation, 31; in- 
fluence of events in Italy (1859) 
upon, 246; war with Prussia and 
Austria and Treaty of Vienna, 
(1S64) 256-259, 593; possessions 
of, in Africa (1815), 551; gov- 
ernment of, 592-593; Frederick 
VII grants constitutions to, 
593; revision of the Constitution 
of 1849 (1866), 594; growth of 
radicalism in, 594; colonies of, 
594-595; Prince Charles of, be- 
comes Haakon VII of Norway 
(1905), 600 

Depretis, colonial policy of, 383 

Derby, Lord, attitude of the 
Derby-Disraeli ministry toward 
the Jews, 458; becomes Prime 
Minister, 462; on the Reform 
Bill of 1861, 464 

Deshima, Peninsula of, 690 

Devil's Island, Dreyfus deported 
to, 359; Dreyfus brought from, 
362 

Devonshire, Duke of. See Harting- 
ton. Lord 

Dicey, A. V., on the Factory and 
Workshop Act of 1901, 457 

Diet of Frankfort, 29; forced vote 
on Carlsbad Decrees, 41 ; nev/ 
measures of repression (1832), 
112; and the national movement 
in Germany, 174; revived (1851), 
185, 240; Bismarck, Prussian 
delegate to (1851), 253; King of 
Denmark as Duke of Holstein 
represented in, 257; protests 
against the incorporation of 
Schleswig with Denmark, 257; 
Austria brings Schleswig-Hol- 
stein question before the, 263; 
Austria moves in the, that the 
federal forces be sent against 
Prussia, 263; ceases to exist, 268 

Disraeli, 461; becomes leader of 
the House of Commons, 1866, 
462; Reform Bill of 1867 car- 
ried by, 463; on the Irish Land 
Act of 1870, 476; attitude to- 
ward Irish University Bill of 
1873, 485; ministry of, 1874- 
1880, 486-490; and imperialism, 
487; and the purchase of 
the Suez Canal shares, 488; 
proposes title of Empress of 
India for the Queen, 489; for- 
eign policy of, 489; becomes 



786 



INDEX 



Disraeli, contlmied 

Lord Beaconsfield (1816), 489; 
fall of ministry of, 490, 539; 
death of (1881), 49T; and the 
annexation of the Transvaal to 
Great Britain, 538; and the Bul- 
garian atrocities, 622; represents 
England at the Congress of 
Berlin (1818), 625 

Divorce, in France, abolished in 
181Jt, restored in 1881,, 352 

Dobrudscha, ceded to Roumania 
in place of Bessarabia, 625-626 

Dollinger, on the Dogma of Papal 
Infallibility, 307 

Dominion of Canada. See Canada 

Dominion of Nevi' Zealand. See 
New Zealand 

Dostoievski, 652 

Double Vote, in France, by Elec- 
toral Law of 1820, 81 ; rescinded 
(1831), 117 

Draga, Queen, wife of Alexander 
I of Servia, murder of, 633 

Dresden, retained by King of 
Saxony, 8; Prussian troops oc- 
cupy, 264 

Dreyfus Case, 358-364; Dreyfus 
(Alfred) condemned for trea- 
son (1895), 359; attempts in 
Dreyfus' favor, 360; Zola tries 
to reopen the, 360; Court of 
Cassation orders a retrial of, 
1899, 362; Dreyfus pardoned by 
President Loubet, 362; vindicat- 
ed, 363; the clergy in, 368 

Droysen, 246 

Dual Alliance (1891), Russia and 
France, 357 

Dual Control (1879-1883), Eng- 
land and France in Egypt, 559, 
561 

Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hun- 
gary), 393-396 

Dublin, Irish Parliament at, abol- 
ished (1800), 468; Universities 
at, 484; formation of Home 
Rule League at, 497; Thomas 
Burke assassinated at, 499; Uni- 
versity at (1908), for Catholics, 
516 

Duchies, War of the. See 
Schleswig-Holstein 

Duma, Character of the, 711, 712; 
elections to, 713; Nicholas II 
opens the, May 10, 1906, 713; de- 
mands and impotence of, 714; 
dissolved by the Tsar, July 22, 



Duma, continued 

1906, 715; Viborg Manifesto by 
members of the, 715; The Sec- 
ond, opened by the Tsar, March 
5, 1907, 715, dissolved, June 16, 

1907, 716; The Third, November 
14, 1907, 716 

Dunwich, 413 

Durham, Lord, in the Grey Min- 
istry, 430; on condition of the 
colonies in Canada, 525; mis- 
sion of, 525; report of, 525- 
527, 528 

Dutch Guiana, 581 

East India Company, 519, 522 

East Indies, 519; Dutch colonies 
in, 581 

East Prussia, 326 

Eastern Question, Thiers and, 
131; Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi 
(1833), 132; London Confer- 
ence (18.1,0) and, 132; Austria- 
Hungary and, 405; importance 
of, 602; Nicholas I and, 611- 
612; Moldavia-Wallachia and, 
611, 617; reopening of, 1875, 
489, 620; England and, 625; Con- 
gress of Berlin (1878) and, 625- 
627; Young Turks and, 636-644. 
See also Turkey and Chapter 
XXVIII, 601-644, passim 

Edict of Emancipation (Russia), 
1861, 657 

Edinburgh, 98 

Edinburgh Bevievj (1819), Fran- 
cis Jeffrey on the steam engine, 
408 

Education, Creation of a national 
system of, in France, 352; com- 
pulsory, in Italy by Education 
Laws, 1877 and 1904, 381; 
secular, established in Austria, 
397; in England by Forster 
Education Act of 1870, 478- 
481; attendance made compul- 
sory in England (1880), 481; 
made free in England (1891), 
481; Education Act of 1902, 
513-514; in Portugal, 578; in 
Belgium, 582-583; in Denmark, 
594; in Greece, 635; in Russia, 
660, 661; in Japan, 693; in 
China, 704 

Edward VII, 1901 — , accession of, 
513 

Egypt, war with Turkey, 131; 
Khedive of, sells shares of 



INDEX 



787 



EgjT^t, continued 

Suez Canal to England, 488; 
early history of, 550; in 1815, 
551; English occupation of, 
1882, 554; 557-563; relation to 
Turkey, 557; Mehemet Ali in, 
557; intervention of England 
and France in, 559; revolt of 
Arabi Pasha, 559; English ex- 
pedition crushes the revolt, 559; 
England assumes the position of 
adviser in, 560; English occupa- 
tion of, 561; loss of the Soudan, 
561 ; recovery of the Soudan, 
562; part of the Ottoman Em- 
pire (1815), 601; condition in 
1815, 603, 643 

Eidsvold, Constitution of, 1814, 
595, 598 

Elba, 122 

Electricity, and the industrial de- 
velopment of Italy, 385-386; the 
telegraph, the telephone, 726 

Elgin, Lord, Governor of Canada, 
introduces principle' of minis- 
terial responsibility, 527 

Ely, attitude of government to- 
ward rioters in, 420 

Emancipation of the serfs, in Rus- 
sia (1861), 657 

Empress-Dowager of China, 698; 
change of policy of the, 704 

Ems, 291; despatch, 292 

Ena, Princess, of Battenberg, 
marries King Alfonso XIII of 
Spain (1906), 575 

England, retains Malta (1815), 
3; acquisitions of (1815), 9; 
signs Quadruple Alliance 

(1815), 17; King of, a member 
of the German Confederation 
for Hanover, 31; at Congress 
of Troppau (1820), 59; opposes 
policy of armed intervention in 
Spain, 63; Canning restricts 
Holy Alliance to the Continent 
of Europe, 64-65; influence of 
July Revolution (1830) in, 100; 
favors election of Leopold of 
Coburg as King of Belgium, 
104; recognizes Kingdom of 
Belgium at conference of the 
Powers in London (18S0-1831), 
105; aids Turkey against Rus- 
sia, 132; London Conference 
(1840), 132; with France and 
Piedmont wages war against 
Russia in the Crimea, 212, 219; 



England, contin/ued 
at Congress of Paris (1856), 
220; participates in affairs in 
Italy, 229; attitude toward the 
cession of Savoy and Nice to 
France, 231, 274; Napoleon 
Ill's treaty of commerce with 
(1860), 274; intervenes with 
France and Spain in Mexico, 
277; neutrality of, in Franco- 
German war, 294; Free Trade 
in, 310-312, 450-455; fleet of, 
bombards Algiers, 372; to the 
Reform Bill of 1832, 406-438; 
in 1815, 406; industrial revolu- 
tion in, 406-408; renown of Par- 
liament, 409; a land of the old 
regime, 409; commanding posi- 
tion of the nobility in, 410; 
House of Commons (1815), 410- 
414; the Church of, 415-416; 
works of Adam Smith and 
Jeremy Bentham on conditions 
in, 417; effect of the French 
Revolution upon, 417; economic 
distress in, after 1815, 418; 
Corn Law of 1815, 418; demand 
for reform, 419; William Cobbett 
and parliamentary reform, 419- 
420; popular disturbances 
(1816), 420; Spa Fields, 420; 
suspension of Habeas Corpus 
(1817), 421; massacre of Peter- 
loo (1819), 421; Parliament 
passes the Gag Laws, 422; death 
of George III (1820), and ac- 
cesion of George IV (1820- 
1830), 422; era of reform after 
1820, 422; defiance of the Holy 
Alliance, 422; economic reforms 
in, 423; Penal Code, reformed 
by Sir Robert Peel, 424; reli- 
gious inequality, 424; repeal of 
the Test and Corporation Acts 
(1828), 425; O'Connell founds 
the Catholic Association in Ire- 
land, 427; O'Connell elected 
to Parliament, 427; Catholic 
Emancipation Act (1829), 428; 
Tory opposition to the reform 
of Parliament, 428; death of 
George IV and accession of Wil- 
liam IV, 428; influence of the 
French Revolution of 1830, 
429; fall of the Tory ministry, 
430; First Reform Bill, 430; 
speeches for and against, 431- 
435; ministry defeated, Parlia- 



788 



INDEX 



England, continued 
ment dissolved, 435; Second Re- 
form Bill defeated by the 
House of Lords, 435; Third 
Reform Bill, 436; Grey Min- 
istry resigns, 436; William IV 
attempts to get a ministry, 
fails and recalls Grey, 436; the 
Bill passed, June 4, 1832, 437; 
redistribution of seats, 437; the 
franchise, 437; between two 
Great Reforms (1S32-1867), 439- 
464; era of Whig government, 
439; abolition of slavery in the 
colonies, 1834, 440; child labor 
agitation, 440-441 ; Factory Act, 
1833, 442; evils in local govern- 
ment, 449; Municipal Corpora- 
tions Act, 1835, 444; death of 
William IV and accession of 
Queen Victoria, 445; the Queen's 
political education and mar- 
riage, 445; loss of Hanover, 446; 
Chartist Movement, 446-450; 
The People's Charter (1838), 
447; Lovett and O'Connor, 447- 
448; Petition of 18^8, 449; sig- 
nificance of the movement, 449; 
Free Trade and Anti-Corn-Law 
Agitation, 450-455 ; Anti-Corn- 
Law League (1839) Cobden, 
Bright and Villiers, 453; argu- 
ments for Free Trade, 452; Irish 
Famine, 453; repeal of the Corn 
Laws, 1846, 454; remaining pro- 
tective duties gradually removed, 
454; Navigation Laws abol- 
ished (18-'f9), 454; labor legis- 
lation, 1840-1850, 455-458; regu- 
lation of labor in mines, 455; 
Factory Laws of 18U, 1847, 
1850, Act of 1878, 456; Morley 
on the labor code, 456; Factory 
and Workshop Act of 1901, 
457; growth of trades-unions, 
457; growth of collectivism, 458; 
Jews admitted to House of Com- 
mons, 1858, 458; abolition of 
property qualification for mem- 
bers of ParHament, 458; Glad- 
stone, Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer and his policy, 459; 
Postal Savings Banks, 459; in- 
dustrial and scientific progress, 
460; demand for a wider suf- 
frage, 461; e. t of the Civil 
War in the I .ited States on, 
461; Gladstone introduces a re- 



England, continued 

form bill, 1866, 461; Derby and 
Disraeli form a ministry, 462; 
Reform Bill of 1867 carried by 
Disraeli, 463; provisions of the 
Reform Bill of 1867, 463; re- 
distribution of seats, 464; the 
Liberals under Gladstone come 
into power, 464; under Glad- 
stone and Disraeli, 465-496; the 
Great Ministry, 465; conditions 
in Ireland (1815), 467-469; 
Disestablishment of the Irish 
Church, 1869, 472; Irish Land 
Act of 1870, 475-477; Church 
schools, 477; Forster Education 
Act of 1870, 478-481; condition 
of education prior to 1870, 478; 
inadequacy of the system, 478; 
the Act and its provisions, 
478-480; attendance made com- 

, pulsory (1880), 481; attendance 
made free (1891), 481; Educa- 
tion Act of 1902, 481, 513-514; 
Army reform (1871), 481-482; 
introduction of short service, 
481 ; abolition of the purchase 
system, 482; Civil Service re- 
form (1870), 482; Ballot Law 
of 1872, 483-484; Gladstone's 
Irish University Bill of 1873 de- 
feated, 485; Gladstone resigns 
but returns to office, 485; the 
Alabama award, 486, 591 ; Con- 
servatives under Disraeli come 
into office by elections of 1874, 
486; the Disraeli Ministry, 1874- 
1880, 486-490; importance of the 
colonies emphasized, 487; pur- 
chase of the Suez Canal shares 
(1875), 488, 558; Queen pro- 
claimed Empress of India, 489, 
522; reopening of the Eastern 
Question (1876), 489; Second 
Gladstone Ministry, 1880-1885, 
490-496; failure of the Irish 
Land Act of 1870, 490; Irish 
Land Act of 1881, the Three F's, 
491; Reform Bill of 1884, 492; 
Redistribution Act of 1885, 493; 
Single Member districts, 494; 
qualifications for voting, 495; 
since 1886, 497-517; Irish Home 
Rule Movement, 498; Third 
Gladstone Ministry, 1886, 499; 
introduction of the Home Rule 
BiU, 500; Irish Land Purchase 
Bill, 501; opposition to the bills. 



INDEX 



789 



England, continued 
501-504; disruption of the Lib- 
eral Party, 504; Home Rule 
Bill defeated, 504; fall of 
Gladstone, 504; Second Salis- 
bury Ministry, 1SS6-1892, 505- 
507; policy of coercion for Ire- 
land, 505; Land Purchase Act of 
1891, 505-500; County Councils 
Act of ISSS, 506; social legis- 
lation, 507; increase of the 
Navy, 507; Fourth Gladstone 
Ministry (lS92-189Jf), 507-510; 
second Home Rule Bill (1893), 
507-509; Parish Councils Bill of 
189 Jf, 509; Gladstone resigns, 
510; Roseberv Ministry, 510-511; 
Third Salisbury Ministry, 511- 
515; War in South Africa, 1899- 
1902, 512; Irish Land Purchase 
Act of 1896, 512; Irish Local 
Government Act (1898), 512; 
Education Act of 1902, 513; 
abolition of the school boards, 
514; decline of illiteracy, 514; 
the Liberal Party in power, 
1905 — , 515; Old Age Pensions 
Law (1908), 515; Irish Univer- 
sity or Birrell Act (1908), 516; 
colonial possessions prior to 
1815, 519; India, 519-523; an- 
nexation of Burma and Balu- 
chistan and protectorate of 
Afghanistan, 523; British North 
America, 523-530; the Durham 
Mission, 525; Lord Durham's 
Report, 525-527; the Oregon dis- 
pute, 529; relation of Canada 
to, 529; and Australia, 530-534; 
and New Zealand, 534-536; and 
British South Africa, 536-545; 
acquires Cape Colony, 536; fric- 
tion with the Boers, 537; the 
Great Trek (1836), 537; sends 
troops into Natal (18Ji2), 538; 
proclaims Natal a colony (181/3), 
538; Orange Free State declared 
a part of the British Empire 
(1848), 538; Transvaal annexed 
to the British Empire (1877), 
538; Majuba Hill, 539; Pretoria 
Convention, 1881, 540; London 
Convention, 1884, 540; Jameson 
Raid, 1895, 541; Sir Alfred 
Milner's Reports, 1899, 542; 
South African War, 1899-1902, 
543-544; annexation of the 
Transvaal and the Orange Free 



England, continued 
State to the British Empire, 
1902, 544; and Imperial Federa- 
tion, 545-549; possessions in 
Africa, 1815, 551; explorations 
in Africa, 552-553; occupies 
Egypt, 1882, 554; acquisitions in 
Africa, 188^-1890, 554; at the 
Conference of the Powers, 1876, 
554; at the Congress of Berlin, 
1884-1885, 555; demands re- 
forms in the Congo, 557; inter- 
venes in Egypt, 559; crushes the 
revolt of Arabi Pasha, 1882, 
559; assumes the position of 
"adviser," 560; "occupation" of 
Egypt, 561; recovers Soudan, 
1898, 562; Lord Beresford 
in Portugal, 1807, 575; inter- 
venes in the Greek War of Inde- 
pendence, 608; and the Treaty of 
London, 1827, 609; battle of 
Navarino, 1827, 610; guarantees 
independence of Greece, 611; 
Nicholas I of Russia and, 611; 
in the Coalition against Russia, 
613; invasion of the Crimea and 
siege of Sebastopol, 614; Treaty 
of Paris, 1856, 615; and the Ber- 
lin Memorandum, 1876, 620; de- 
mands revision of the Treaty of 
San Stefano, 625; at Congress 
of Berlin, 1878, 625-626; occu- 
pies Cyprus, 626; cedes the Ionian 
Islands to Greece, 1864, 634; in- 
duces the Sultan to cede Thes- 
saly to Greece, 1881, 634; atti- 
tude toward the breaches of the 
Berlin Treaty of 1878, 629, 640; 
in Asia, 681 ; and the Opium 
War, 1840-1842, 685; gains by 
Treaty of Nanking ( 18^/2 ), 685; 
joined by France in second war 
against China, 686; Treaty of 
Tientsin (1858), 686, confirmed, 
687; bombards Kagoshima, 691; 
acquires a port in CWna by 
lease, 697; helps to rescue the 
legations in Peking, 698; diplo- 
matic relations of, with Pvussia 
concerning Manchuria, 700; 
Anglo- Jap anese Treaty of 1902, 
700 

Epirus, 626 

Eritrea, Italir ^colony, 382 

Esterhazy, Ma 'or, and the Drey- 
fus Case, 359-,^63 

Esthonia, 645 



790 



INDEX 



Eton College, Gladstone at, 465; 
477 

Eugenie, Empress, marries Na- 
poleon III, 210; urges war 
against Prussia, 293; flees from 
Paris after the surrender of Na- 
poleon III at Sedan, 297; 306 

Europe, Reconstruction of, 1-22; 
Central, between two Revolu- 
tions, 145-168; Central, in Re- 
volt, 169-186 

"Expansion of England," by 
Seelev, on the government of In- 
dia, 522 

Factory Acts (England), Act of 
1833, 442; Acts of 18U, 1847, 
1850, 456; Act of 1878, 456; 
Act of 1889, 506-507; Factory 
and Workshop Act of 1901, 457 

Factory system, Rise of, 722. See 
Industrial Revolution 

Faidherbe, and the annexation of 
the Senegal Valley, 373 

Failly, General de, 295 

Falk Laws (Prussia, 1873, 1874, 
1875), 308 

Far East, The, 681-705 

Far Eastern Question, 680, 703, 
See Chapter XXX, 681-705 

Faroe Islands, 594 

Faure, Felix, President of the 
French Republic (1895-1899), 
358; death of, 361 

Favre, Jules, and the proclamation 
of the French Republic, 297- 
298 

February Revolution (1848) in 
France, Influence of, in Europe, 
145 

Federal Act of the Congress of 
Vienna, 32, 35, 38 

Federation (British Imperial). 
See Imperial 

Fenian Movement, 470, 528 

Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg, Prince 
of Bulgaria, elected Prince of 
Bulgaria (1887), 630; election 
of, recognized by the Great 
Powers (1896), 631; proclaims 
complete independence of Bul- 
garia, October 5, 1908, and as- 
sumes the title of King, 631, 639 

Ferdinand I, Emperor of Austria, 
1835-1848, 27, 152; dissolves 
Hungarian parliament, 178; 
flees to Olmiitz, 178; abdication 
of, 179 



Ferdinand I, King of Naples, 
treaty of, with Austria, 53; 
character of, 56; at Florence, 60 

Ferdinand II, King of Naples, 
proclaims a constitution, 167; 
181; 220 

Ferdinand VII, King of Spain, 
restoration of (1814), 46-50; 
character of, 46; abolishes Con- 
stitution of 1812, 47; persecutes 
Liberals, 47; disintegration of 
the Spanish Empire under, 48- 
49, 565; Revolution of 1820, 49- 
50; proclaims Constitution of 
1812, 50; absolutism of, restored 
by France, 63; revenge of, after 
1823, 564; promulgates the Prag- 
matic Sanction of 1789 (1830), 
565; death of (1833), 566 

Ferrara, Pius IX protests against 
Austrian occupation of, 166 

Ferry. Jules, and the proclamation 
of the French Republic, 297; 
351 ; minister of public instruc- 
tion, 353; prime minister, 1881, 
1883-1885, his colonial policy, 
353; overthrow of, 355; sends 
troops into Tunis (1881), 374 

Fichte, 44 

Field, Cyrus, and the Atlantic 
Cable, 460 

Fielden, and the child labor agita- 
tion, 442 

Fieschi, attempt on the life of 
Louis Philippe, 125 

Fife, 412 

Figueras, 572 

Final Act of Congress of Vienna, 
4, 12 

Finland, retained by Russia in 
1815, 8; seized by Russia, 595, 
645; Russification of, 672; 
Nicholas II and, 678-680; abro- 
gation of the constitution of, 
679; Russia makes concessions 
to, 713; the Viborg Manifesto, 
715; Nicholas II restores the lib- 
erties of (1905), 717; Parlia- 
ment of, altered, 718; conditions 
in (1909), 718 

Flocon, 188 

Florence, overthrow of Republic 
of, 182; capital of Italy, 1865- 
1871, 378 

Florida, 64 

Foochow, opened to British trade 
by Treaty of Nanking (1842), 
685 



INDEX 



791 



Forbach, Germans defeat the 
French at, 296 

Forey, General, 278 

Formosa, China cedes, to Japan 
(1895), 696 

Forster, William Edward, in the 
Gladstone Ministry, 1868, 465; 
Education Act of 1870, 478-481, 
513 

Fouch^, 27 

Fox, 433; on the government of 
colonies, 526 . 

France, and the restoration ot 
Louis XVIII, 2; boundaries of, 
by Treaty of Paris (1814), 3; 
Isle of, 9; burdens imposed 
upon, by Second Treaty of 
Paris (1815), 13; attitude of 
Allies toward, 16-17; at Con- 
gress of Troppau (1820), 59; at 
Congress of Verona (1822), 
62; reign of Louis XVIII, QQ- 
83; during the Restoration, 66- 
99; France in 1815, 66; the Con- 
stitutional Charter, 67-70; politi- 
cal parties in (1815), 72-73; the 
White Terror in, 73; execution 
of Marshal Ney, 74; the King 
and the Chamber of Deputies, 
74; period of moderate liberal- 
ism in (1816-1820), 75; the al- 
lied troops evacuate, 75; reor- 
ganization of the army in (1818), 
76; the electoral system in, 77; 
the Press Law of 1819, 78; activ- 
ity of the Ultras in, 78; and the 
election of Gregoire, 79; and the 
murder of the Duke of Berry, 
79; the Electoral Law of 1820 
in, 80; censorship restored in, 81; 
invades Spain (1823), 63, 82; 
death of Louis XVIII, 82; reign 
of Charles X, 83-97; policy of 
Charles X, 83-89; fall of Vil- 
lele Ministry, 89; ministries of 
Martignac and Polignac, 89- 
91; prorogation of Chambers and 
General Election, 91-92; Ordi- 
nances of July (1830), 92; July 
Revolution, 95; abdication of 
Charles X, 97; Louis Philippe 
made King, 98; end of the 
Restoration, 98-99; favors elec- 
tion of Leopold of Coburg as 
King of Belgium, 104; recog- 
nizes Kingdom of Belgium, 
105; attitude toward insurrec- 
tion in the Papal States, 110; 



France, contimied 
seizes Ancona, 111; reign of 
Louis Philippe, 114-144; his 
legal title to the throne, 115; 
the constitution of, revised, 116; 
the franchise in, lowered (1831), 
117; character of the July Mon- 
archy in, 117; insecurity of the 
new regime, 118; the progressive 
and conservative parties, 119; 
popular unrest, 120; Casimir- 
Perier Ministry in, 120-122; the 
Legitimists, 122; Republican in- 
surrection (1832), 123; vigorous 
measures of the government in, 
124; attempts upon the life of 
Louis Philippe, 125; the Sep- 
tember Laws (1835), 125; Louis 
Philippe and the Napoleonic 
legend, 127-129; rivalry of Thiers 
and Guizot, 130; personal gov- 
ernment of Louis Philippe, 131; 
Thiers and the Eastern Ques- 
tion, 131 ; becomes patron of 
Mehemet Ali, 132; ignored by 
London Conference (1840), 132; 
ministry of Thiers, 131-132; 
ministry of Guizot, 132-142; de- 
mand for electoral and parlia- 
mentary reform in, 135; rise 
of radicalism in, 136; growth of 
socialism in, 138; opposition to 
the policy of the government, 
139-142; the "reform banquets," 
140; revolution of February 
(1848), 142, 187; abdication and 
flight of Louis Philippe, 142; 
Second Republic proclaimed, 
143; effect of Revolution of 1848 
on Europe, 145, 176; intervenes 
in Rome, 182; siege and capture 
of Rome, 182; Second Republic, 
187-206; Provisional Government, 
in, 188; achievements of the 
Provisional Government, 189; the 
national workshops, 192; Na- 
tional Constituent Assembly, 
193; riot of May 15, 1848, 193; 
abolition of the national work- 
shops, 194; the June Days 
(1848), 194; mihtary dictator- 
ship of Cavaignac, 194; grow- 
ing opposition to the Republic, 
195; the constitution, 196-198; 
rise of Louis Napoleon, 198- 
199; Louis Napoleon elected 
President, 200; the legislative as- 
sembly, 201; the President and 



79^ 



INDEX 



France, continued 
Assembly" combine to crush the 
Republicans, 202; Law of 1850 
limiting the franchise, 202; 
Louis Napoleon desires pro- 
longation of his Presidency, 203; 
Assembly refuses to revise the 
constitution for this purpose, 
203; Louis Napoleon's prepara- 
tions for the coup d'etat, 203; 
Assembly refuses Louis Na- 
poleon's demands for the re- 
establishment of universal suf- 
frage, 203; coup d'etat of De- 
cember 2, 1S51, 204; the "mas- 
sacre of the boulevards," 205; 
the plebiscite intrusts Louis Na- 
poleon v/ith forming a constitu- 
tion, 205; Louis Napoleon pro- 
claimed Emperor Napoleon III, 
(December 2, 1852), 205; the 
Second Empire, 1852-1870, 206- 
214; programme of Napoleon 
III, 207; the political institutions 
of the Empire, 207-209 ; the press 
shackled in, 209 ; character of the 
government of, 210; economic de- 
velopment of, 211; general pros- 
perity of, 212; Congress of Paris 
(1856), 212, 220; with England 
and Piedmont wages war against 
Russia in the Crimea, 212, 219; 
and the Italian war of 1859, 213, 
225; defeats Austrians at Ma- 
genta and Solferino, 225; con- 
cludes peace with Austria at 
Villa franca, 225; annexes Savoy 
and Nice, 231 ; transformation 
of the Second Empire in, 273- 
284; effect of the Italian war 
upon, 272; makes secret treaty 
of commerce with England 
(1860), '211 'ii; powers of Parlia- 
ment in, increased, 275; rise of 
a Republican party in, 276; and 
the Mexican Expedition, 277- 
280; concessions to liberalism in, 
280; right of interpellation 
granted in, 281; rise of the 
Third Party in, 282; transforma- 
tion of the Empire com- 
pleted, 283; plebiscite of May 
(1S70), 284; and the Franco- 
German War, 285-302; indigna- 
tion of, over the candidacy of 
Prince Leopold for the Spanish 
throne, 290; and the Ems des- 
patch, 292; declares war upon 



France, continued 
Prussia (1870), 293; isolation 
of, 294; condition of the army, 
295; numerical inferiority of the 
French, 295; the Germans in- 
vade, 296; defeated at Worth, 
Forbach, Spicheren, Borny, 
Mars-Ia-Tours and Gravelotte, 
296 ; battle of Sedan and the sur- 
render of Napoleon, 297; fall 
of the Empire, 297; proclama- 
tion of the Republic, 297; and 
the Government of National De- 
fense, 298; siege of Paris, 298- 
299; fall of Metz, 298; fall of 
Strassburg, 299; capitulation of 
Paris and armistice, 299; elec- 
tion of a National Assembly in, 
299; National Assembly (1871- 
1876) meets at Bordeaux, 300; 
Thiers as " Chief of the Execu- 
tive Power " arranges terms of 
peace with Bismarck, 300; Trea- 
ties of Versailles and Frankfort 
with Germany, 300; isolation of, 
by Bismarck, 320; seizes Tunis 
(1881), 321; under the Third 
Republic, 329-375; the National 
Assembly, February, 1871, meets 
at Bordeaux, 300, 329; the Com- 
mune, 330-336; Paris and the 
Assembly mutually suspicious, 
330; Versailles declared the 
capital, 330; distress of the 
working classes in Paris, 331; 
revolutionary elements in Paris, 
331; idea of the Commune, 332; 
action of the National Guard, 
332; war between the Commune 
and the Versailles Government, 
333; Government of the Com- 
mune, 333; the Commune and 
the National Assembly clash, 
334; Government of Thiers, 336- 
342; Rivet Law passed by the 
National Assembly, 337; Thiers 
becomes President of the Re- 
public, 337; liberation of the 
territory of, 338; reform in local 
government of, 339 ; army reform 
in, 339; question of the perma- 
nent form of government in, 
340; the monarchist parties in, 
341; resignation of Thiers, 341; 
MacMahon elected President, 
342; the framing of the consti- 
tution, 342-351; establishment of 
the Septennate, 343; the Assem- 



INDEX 



793 



France, continued 

bly and the Republicans in, 344; 
Constitution of 1S75, 345; the 
Senate, 345; the Chamber of 
Deputies, 346; the President, 
346; the ministry, 347; a parlia- 
mentary republic, 348; dissolu- 
tion of the National Assembly 
in, 348; the Republic and the 
Church, 349; struggle between 
MacMahon and the Chamber, 
349; resignation of MacMahon 
and election of Grevy, 351; su- 
premacy of Republican party in, 
351; Republican legislation, 351- 
354; creation of a national sys- 
tem of education, 352; public 
works, 353; revision of the con- 
stitution (ISSIj), 353; colonial 
policy, 353; rise of Boulangism, 
354-358; increase of the national 
debt, 354; demands of the Radi- 
cals, 354; discontent with the 
Republic, 355; Wilson scandal, 
355; resignation of Grevy and 
election of Carnot, 355 ; Boulanger 
crisis, 356; the Republic strength- 
ened, 357; Paris Exposition of 
1S89, 357; Pope advises concilia- 
tory policy toward the Republic 
in, 357; Dual Alliance with 
Russia (1891), 357; appearance 
of the Socialists in, 358; assas- 
sination of Carnot (189^) and 
election of Faure, 358; death of 
Faure (1899), 358; Dreyfus 
Case, 358-364; significance of the 
case, 364; separation of Church 
and State in, 364-371; formation 
of the "Bloc," 364; speech of 
Waldeck-Rousseau, Prime Min- 
ister, concerning question of 
Church and State (1900), 365; 
growth of religious orders in, 
365; Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry 
and the Law of Associations 
(1901), 366; religious orders for- 
bidden to engage in teaching 
(1904), 366; the Concordat of 
1801, 367; anti-clerical legisla- 
tion, 367; the clergy in the Drey- 
fus affair, 368; Pius X protests 
against President Loubet's visit 
to Victor Emmanuel III, 368; 
abrogation of the Concordat, 
368; Law of 1905 and Associa- 
tions of Worship, 369; opposi- 
tion of Pius X, 369-370; Law 



France, continued 
of January 2, 1907, 370; separa- 
tion of Church and State in, 
370; acquisition of colonies by, 
in the nineteenth century, 371- 
375; French colonial empire 
in 1815, 371; conquest of Al- 
geria, 372-373; other African 
conquests, 373; acquisitions in 
Cochin-China, Western Africa, 
Asia, and Madagascar, 373-375; 
and the Suez Canal, 488; atti- 
tude toward her colonies, 546; 
possessions in Africa, 1815, 551; 
establishes protectorate over 
Tunis, 1881, 554; acquisitions in 
Africa, 1884-1890, 554; at the 
Conference of the Powers, 1876, 
554; at the Congress of Berlin, 
1884-1885, 555; intervenes in 
Egypt, 558; reasons for inter- 
vention of, in the Greek War of 
Independence, 608-609; and the 
Treaty of London, 1827, 609 
battle of Navarino, 1827, 610 
sends army into the Morea, 611 
guarantees independence of 
Greece, 611; and the "holy 
places" in Palestine, 612; in the 
Coalition against Russia, 613; 
invasion of the Crimea and 
siege of Sebastopol, 614; Treaty 
of Paris, 1856, 615; attitude of, 
toward the breaches of the Ber- 
lin Treaty of 1878, 629, 640, 644; 
in Asia, 681 ; establishes trade 
centers at the five treaty ports 
of China, 686; joins England in 
war against China, 686; Treaty 
of Tientsin (1858), 686, con- 
firmed, 687; intervenes with Rus- 
sia and Germany in Japan, 696; 
acquires a port in China by 
lease, 697; helps to rescue the 
legations in Peking (1900), 698 

Franchise, in Australia, 532; in 
Austria, reform in (1873), 399; 
reform in (1896), 401; universal 
(1907), 402; in Belgium, 582; in 
Canada, Dominion of (1867), 
529; in Denmark, 594; in Eng- 
land (1815), 410-415; by Reform 
Bill of 1832, 437-438; by Re- 
form Bill of 1867, 463-464; for 
women, Mill's speech in favor 
of, 464; by Reform Bill of 
1884, 492-49*3; qualifications for, 
495-496; for women, present 



' y 



794 



INDEX 



Franchise, continued 
status of (1909), 516-517; in 
Finland, universal (1906), 718; 
in France, Constitutional Charter 
(18U), 68; Electoral Law 
(1811), 77; Electoral Law 
(1820), 80; Electoral Law 
(1831), 117; under the Pro- 
visional Government, 190; Law 
of 1850, 202; under the Second 
Empire, 209; under the Third 
Republic, 346; in Germany, 304; 
in Greece, 634; in Holland 
(1815), 579; (1848), 580; by 
amendments to the Constitution 
(1887 and 1896), 581; in Hun- 
gary, 404; in Iceland, 595; in 
Italy, reform of (1882), 381; 
in Japan, 694; in New Zealand, 
536; in Norway, 600; in Portu- 
gal, 577; in Prussia, 186, 326; 
in Roumania, 632; in Russia 
(1909), 716; in Spain, universal 
(1890), 575; in Sweden, 600; in 
Switzerland, 586; in Turkey 
(1908), 642; in Union of South 
Africa 544-545 

Francis I, of Austria (1768-1835), 
character of, 19; and Metter- 
nich, 25, 152 

Francis II, King of Naples, Re- 
volt against, 232; flees from 
Naples on advance of Garibaldi, 
235; flees from Gaeta to Rome, 
237 

Francis Joseph I, 18Jf8 — , acces- 
sion of, 179; appeals to Nicholas 
I for aid against Hungary, 180; 
interview with Napoleon III at 
Villafranca, 225; alliance of the 
Three Emperors, 320; and the 
Magyars in Hungary, 388; re- 
vokes the Constitution of 1849, 
388; reverses his policy, 389; 
grants a constitution (1861), to 
Austria, 390; attitude of Hun- 
gary towards, 391; yields, 393; 
accepts Compromise of 1867, 
393; crowned King of Hun- 
gary (1867), 393; and the de- 
mands of the Czechs, 397-398; 
and the question of language, 
404; annexes Bosnia and Herze- 
govina (1908), 639-640 

Franco-German War, 285-302 

Frankfort, German National As- 
sembly or Parliament of, 174, 
175; work of, 183; rejection of 



Frankfort, continued 
the work of, 185; entered by the 
Prussians (1866), 265; incorpo- 
rated in the Prussian Kingdom, 
267; Treaty of (1871), 300, 338; 
and relation of Treaty of, to 
Triple Alliance, 319. See also 
Diet of Frankfort 

Frederick HI, German Emperor, 
March 9-June 15, 1888, 305; 
succeeds his father William I, 
322; death of, 322 

Frederick VI, King of Denmark 
(1808-1839), loses Norway, 592; 
establishes consultative assem- 
blies, 1834, 592 

Frederick VII, King of Denmark 
(1848-1863), 257; grants con- 
stitution (1849) to the Islands 
and Jutland, 593; grants con- 
stitutions of 1854 and 1855, 
593; and Schleswig-Holstein, 593 

Frederick VIII, King of Den- 
mark, 1906—, 595 

Frederick William III, King of 
Prussia (1797-1840), character 
of, 19; becomes reactionary, 38- 
43; government of, 146-149; 
death of (1840), 149 

Frederick William IV, King of 
Prussia (1840-1861), character 
of, 149; issues the Letter Pa- 
tent of February (1847), 151; 
conflict with the United Landtag, 
152; promises to call a repre- 
sentative assembly to draw up a 
constitution, 174; ofi'ered leader- 
ship in Germany, 184; declines 
the off'er, 185; the "humiliation 
of Olmiitz," 185; grants con- 
stitution of 1850, 185-186; be- 
comes reactionary, 241 ; William 
I becomes Regent for, 247; death 
of, 247 

Free Trade, in England, Bismarck 
on, 310-312; 450-455, 548 

Freiburg, 590 

French Congo, founded, 353 

French Constitution of 1791, 46, 
576 

French Guiana, 359 

French Revolution (1789), effects 
of, in France, 66; influence of, 
shown in the Constitutional 
Charter, 69; loss of French 
colonies as a result of, 371; 
effect of, upon England, 417, 
519 ^ - 



INDEX 



795 



French Soudan, 374 
Freytag, 2i6 
Fujiyama, 687 

Fulton, and the Clermont, 723 
Fundamental Law of 1815 (Hol- 
land), 579 



Gaeta, Francis II flees to, 235, 
236; siege of, 237; fall of, 237 

Gag Laws or Six Acts (England), 
1S19, 423 

Galicia, 62; position in the Aus- 
trian Empire (1861), 390; Poles 
in, favored by Taaffe Ministry, 
400 

Galton, 413 

Galvani, 386 

Galway, 484; college at, 516 

Gambetta, Leon ("i 84 0-i 882 j, emer- 
gence of, 281; denounces Na- 
poleon III, 282; 284; votes 
against war with Prussia, 293; 
proclaims the French Repub- 
lic after the surrender of 
the Emperor at Sedan, 297; 
escapes from Paris and organ- 
izes new armies, 298; defeated, 
329; attitude toward the Com- 
munists, 336; and the Republic, 
344; attitude toward the Roman 
Catholic Church, 349, 366; Brog- 
lie Ministry against, 350; presi- 
dent of the Chamber of Depu- 
ties, 351 ; death of (1882), 355 

Gapon, Father, 710 

Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 1807-1882, 
joins Young Italy, 162; attitude 
toward Cavour after the cession 
of Nice, 231; early life, 232; and 
the defense of Rome, 233; deter- 
mines to go to Sicily, 233; and 
Cavour, 234; conquers Sicily and 
assumes the dictatorship, 235; 
conquers Naples, 235; proposes 
to attack Rome, 235; requests 
Victor Emmanuel to dismiss 
Cavour, 237; meeting with Vic- 
tor Emmanuel, 237; retires to 
Caprera, 237 

Gastein, Convention of, 259, 261 

General Strike, The resort to the, 
in Russia (1905), 711-712 

Geneva Commission, 1872, 486, 591 

Genoa, Republic of, incorporated 
in Sardinia, 3, 5, 52; " The Thoit- 
sand " embark from, 234 

Gentz, 15 



George, Prince, son of George I 
of Greece, administrator of 
Crete, 635 

George I, King of Greece, 1863 
— , 634-635 

George I, of England, Elector of 
Hanover, 446 

George I, Duke of Cumberland, be- 
comes King of Hanover on ac- 
cession of Queen Victoria, 446 

George III (1760-1820), death of, 
422; opposition to Catholic 
Emancipation, 426; 445; and 
New South Wales, 531 

George IV (1820-1830), acces- 
sion of, 422; opposition to 
Catholic Emancipation, 426; and 
the Catholic Emancipation Act, 
428; death of, 428 

German Confederation, organized 
by the Congress of Vienna 
(1815), 29; the Diet of, 29-30; 
international character of, 31-32; 
and Metternich, 35, 173; restored 
(1851), 185, 388; Holstein a part 
of, 257; Bismarck proposes a 
reform of, 262; Prussia with- 
draws from, 263; declared dis- 
solved by Prussia, 263; ceases 
to exist, 267-268 

German East Africa, 319 

German Empire, 303-328. See 
Germany 

German Southwest Africa, 319 

Germany, and the Treaty of Paris 
(1814), 3; the Metternich sys- 
tem in, 28, 35; reaction in, 28- 
44; varieties of states in, 29; 
Act of Federation of, at the 
Congress of Vienna, 29, 32; the 
Diet of the Confederation of, 29- 
30 ; international character of, 31- 
32; problem of unity in, 32-36; 
demand for constitutional gov- 
ernment in, 35-37; the King of 
Prussia becomes reactionary, 38; 
ferment in the universities of, 
39; Wartburg Festival, 39; mur- 
der of Kotzebue, 40; decrees of 
the conference of Carlsbad, 41- 
44; influence of July Revolution 
(1830) in, 100; revolution (1830) 
in, 112; new measures of re- 
pression, 112; Metternich su- 
preme in, 113; revolution (1848) 
in, 173; Vorparlament, 174; Par- 
liament of Frankfort, 174; 
March (1848) revolutions tri- 



796 



INDEX 



Germany, continued 
umphant in, 174.; work of the 
Frankfort Parliament, 183; lead- 
ership in, offered to the King 
of Prussia, 184; the offer de- 
clined, 185; rejection of the 
work of the Frankfort Parlia- 
ment, 185; and the "humiliation 
of Olmiitz," 185; Austria demands 
that the old German Confedera- 
tion of 1815 be revived in 
(1851), 185; reaction in, after 
18^9, 240-243; emigration from, 
241 ; economic transformation 
of 243; industrial development 
of, 244; rise of a wealthy mid- 
dle class in, 245; intellectual 
activity in, 245; influence of 
events in Italy upon thought in, 
246; founding of the National 
Union in, 246; Bismarck's plan 
for unity in, 255-256; and 
Schleswig-Holstein, 256-267; and 
the Danish war, 258; friction be- 
tween Austria and Prussia, 259; 
Convention of Gastein, 259; war 
between Austria and Prussia, 
263-267; Treaty of Prague, 263, 
267; North German Confedera- 
tion formed, 268; organization 
and government of, 269; alliance 
with South German States, 270; 
consolidation of the new system 
in, 270; South German States 
join Prussia in war against 
France, 293 ; Franco-German 
war, 293-299; invasion of 
France, 296; Germans defeat 
French at Worth, Forbach, 
Spicheren, Borny, Mars-la-Tours, 
and Gravelotte, 296; Union of 
Northern and Southern States 
completes German unification, 
301 ; King William I becomes 
Emperor in, 301 ; growth of 
national feeling in, since 1815, 
303; constitution of the new Ger- 
man Empire, 303-305; and the 
Roman Catholic Church, 306; the 
Kulturkampf in, 306-310; causes 
of the Kulturkampf, 306; forma- 
tion of the Center Party, 307; 
Dogma of Papal Infallibility, 
307; the Old Catholics, 307; the 
Falk Laws, 308; conflict of 
Church and State, 308; Falk 
Laws suspended (1819), 309; 
rescinded (1886), 309; religious 



Germany, continued 

orders except Jesuits permitted 
to return to (1881), 309; adopts 
the policy of protection, 310; 
growth of Socialism in, 312; at- 
tempts upon the life of the Em- 
peror, 313; measures against 
the Socialists, 313; failure of 
these measures and continued 
growth of the Socialist party 
in, 314; the Imperial Govern- 
ment of, undertakes social re- 
form, 315; Sickness Insurance 
Law (1883), Accident Insurance 
Laws (188Jt and 1885), Old Age 
Insurance Law (1889), 316; a 
colonial empire results from the 
adoption of the policy of pro- 
tection in, 318; colonies in Af- 
rica, 319; alliance of the Three 
Emperors, 330; Austro-German 
Treaty of ^879, 321; Triple Al- 
liance (1882), 321, 382; death of 
William I, 322; accession and 
death of Frederick III, 322; ac- 
cession of William II, 322; Anti- 
Socialist policy abandoned, 323; 
expansion of German industry, 
324; as a naval power, 324; con- 
tinued growth of socialism in, 
324; the Social Democratic party 
numerically the largest in, 325; 
demand for electoral reform in 
Prussia, 326; demand for par- 
liamentary reform in, 326; de- 
mand for ministerial responsi- 
bility in, 327; the present situa- 
tion in (1909), 328; troops with- 
drawn from France {1811- 
1813), 338; emigration from, 
ceases (1908), 386; attitude to- 
ward her colonies, 546; growth 
of, 546; acquisitions in Africa, 
1884-1890, 554; at the Confer- 
ence of the Powers, 1816, 554; 
at the Conference of Berlin, 
1884-1885, 555; and the Congress 
of Berlin (1818), 625-626; atti- 
tude of, toward the breaches of 
the Berlin Treaty (1818), 629, 
640; intervenes with Russia and 
France in Japan, 696; establishes 
a " sphere of influence " in China 
(1898), 697; helps to rescue the 
legations in Peking (1900), 698 

Gioberti, 1801-1852, 164-165; au- 
thor of " The Moral and Civil 
Primacy of the Italians," 164 



INDEX 



797 



Gladstone, William Ewart, 1S09- 
ISOS, denounces the Neapolitan 
government, 215; and the tariff, 
455; Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer (1S52-1S55, 1S59-1S66J 
and his policy, 459; and Postal 
Savings Banks (1S62), 459; and 
State Insurance {1S64J, 459; in- 
troduces Reform Bill of 1866, 
which is defeated, 461-462; and 
the Reform Bill of 1S67, 463; 
early life of, 465; enters Parlia- 
ment (1S33), 466; leader of the 
Liberal Party, 466; First Minis- 
try of (1S6S-1S74), 466; and 
Ireland, 467; Reforms of; — dis- 
establishment of the Anglican 
Church in Ireland (1S69), 472; 
Irish Land Act of 1870, 475; 
Forster Education Act of 1870, 
478; abolition of the purchase 
system in the army (1871), 482; 
Civil Service reform (1870), 
482; Ballot Law of 1872, 483- 
484; — waning popularity of, 484; 
Irish University Bill of 1873 de- 
feated, 485; resigns but returns 
to office, 485; unpopularity of 
the foreign policy of, 486; and 
the Alabama award, 486; fall of 
ministry of, 486; Second Minis- 
try of, 1880-1885, 490-496; Re- 
form Bill of 188Jf, 492; Redis- 
tribution Act of 1885, 493; fall 
of the ministry of, 1885, 497; 
and the Irish Home Rule Move- 
ment, 497-499; Third Ministry of 
(1886), 499 ; introduces the Home 
Rule Bill, 500; and the Land 
Purchase Bill, 501; and the de- 
feat of the Home Rule Bill, 504; 
dissolves Parliament, appeals to 
the people and is defeated, 504; 
Fourth Ministry of (lS92-189-'t), 
507-510; introduces Second 
Home Rule Bill (1893), 507- 
509; Parish Councils Bill of 
1894, 509; resigns (1894), 510; 
on the House of Lords, 510; 
death of (1898), 510; policy of, 
in South Africa, 539; and the 
Pretoria Convention of 1881, 
540; and the London Convention 
of 1884, 540; and Egypt, 560- 
561 ; denounces the Turks, 622 

Glasgow, gain of, in House of 
Commons by Redistribution Act 
of 1885, 494 



Gneisenau, 44 

Gneist, estimate of, concerning 
cultivable land in the United 
Kingdom, 412 

Goethe, on Frederick William IV, 
149 

Gogol, 653 

Gordon, General, in the Soudan, 
561-562; death of, 562 

Goremykin, Prime Minister, issues 
in the name of the Tsar the " or- 
ganic laws," 713; 715 

Gorgei, Hungarian commander, 
capitulates at Vilagos. 180 

GortchakofiP, Russian Chancellor, 
on the Congress of Berlin, 320 

Goschen, George Joachim, in the 
Gladstone Ministry, 1868, 465; 
becomes a Liberal-Unionist, 504 

Gotha, Socialist programme of 
1875, adopted at, 312 

Gramont, Duke of, and the Span- 
ish candidacy of Prince Leo- 
pold, 290-291 

Granville, Lord, on England and 
Egypt, 560 

G rattan, 498 

Gravelotte, Germans defeat French 
at, 296 

Great Britain. See England 

Great Western^ sails from Bristol 
to New York, 724 

Greece, War of Independence of, 
604-611; condition of the Greeks 
(1820), 604; intellectual revival 
in, G05; the Hetairia Philike 
founded in (1814), 605; char- 
acter of the war in (1821-1829), 
606; foreign intervention in, 607- 
609; and the battle of Navarino 
(1827), 610; creation of the 
Kingdom of, 611; opposes the 
Treaty of San Stefano (1878), 
624; and the Congress of Ber- 
lin (1878), 626; since 1833, 633- 
636; reign of Otto I, 633-634; 
the monarchy of, becomes con- 
stitutional (1844), 634; England 
cedes the Ionian Islands to, 
1864, 634; Constitution of 1864, 
634; annexes Thessaly, 1881, 634; 
declares war against Turkey, 
(1897), is defeated and loses 
parts of Thessaly, 635; and 
Crete, 635; present condition of, 
635; aspirations of, 635; Crete 
declares for union with, 1908, 
639 



798 



INDEX 



Greek Church, Ecclesiastics of, 
hanged, 606; in Russia, 645; 
Alexander III and, 670 

Greenland, 594 

Gregoire, elected to French Cham- 
ber of Deputies, is excluded, 79 

Grevy, Jules, proposition of, con- 
cerning the Presidency of the 
Second Republic, 197; elected 
President of the Third Republic, 
351 ; forced to resign, 355 

Grey, Earl, Prime Minister, and 
the First Reform Bill, 430; re- 
signs, 436; recalled and given 
power to create Peers to pass 
the Reform Bill, 436; succeeded 
by Lord Melbourne, 451 

Grey, Sir Edward, British Foreign 
Minister, on the infraction of 
the Berlin Treaty of 1878 
(1908), 641 

Grote, and the secret ballot, 483 

Guadaloupe, French possession 
(1815), 371 

Guam, 319 

Guiana, in South America, French 
possession, 1815, 371; part of 
Dutch, acquired by England, 
519 

Guinea, French annexations in, 374 

Guizot, Courses of, suspended, 86; 
reinstated, 89; and the conserv- 
ative party, 120; rivalry of 
Thiers and, 130; ministry of 
(18)f0-18/,8), 133-142; observa- 
tion of, concerning Cavour, 
232; on the Ollivier Ministry and 
the Hohenzollern candidacy, 292 

Gustavus IV, King of Sweden, 11 

Gustavus V, King of Sweden, 
1907—, 600 



Haakon VII, King of Norway, 
1905—, 600 

Habeas Corpus Act, suspension of, 
in England, 1817, 421; suspen- 
sion of, in Ireland, 470 

Hadley, A. T., on the importance 
of railroads, 725 

Hague, The, Norway and Sweden 
and the International Arbitra- 
tion Tribunal at, 600; First 
Peace Conference (1899), 730- 
733; Second Peace Conference 
(1907), 734-735 

Hallam, Arthur, and Gladstone at 
Eton, 465 



Ham, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte 
imprisoned at, 129, 199, 278 

Hamburg, member of the North 
German Confederation, 268; 
member of German Empire, 304; 
merchants of, establish trading 
stations, 318 

Hamburg-American steamship line, 
established (m7), 724 

Hanotaux, description of the 
" bloody week " in Paris, 335, 
336; on the constitution of 1875, 
348 

Hanover, importance of, in the 
German Diet, 30; a possession 
of the English royal family, 31 ; 
form of government in, 36; and 
the ZoUverein, 149; the National 
Union founded in, 246; supports 
Austria in the war of 1866, 263; 
conquered by Prussia, 264-265; 
King of, taken prisoner, 264; 
incorporated in the Prussian 
Kingdom, 267; England loses, 
446 

Hanseatic towns, 149 

Hapsburg, House of, advantages 
gained at the Congress of 
Vienna, 8; ancient possessions 
of, 23; Hungary renounces al- 
legiance to, 179; territorial 
gains and losses of, 404 

Harbin, 697, 699 

Harcourt, Sir William Vernon, 
and the budget of iS9^, 511 

Hargreaves, 407, 722 

Harrow, 477 

Hartington, Lord (later Duke of 
Devonshire) becomes a Liberal- 
Unionist, 504 

Haussmann, Baron, beautifies Paris, 
212 

Hedley, William, constructs the 
Puffing Billy, 724 

Heidelberg, Liberals at, call the 
Vorparlament, 174 

Heligoland, retained by England 
in 1815, 9, 519 

Helmholtz, 246 

Henry, Colonel, and the Dreyfus 
Case, 359; commits suicide, 
361 

Herzegovina occupied by Austria, 
320; gained by Austria-Hun- 
gary, 404; formally annexed by 
Austria-Hungary (1908), 405, 
639-640; insurrection of, 1875, 
620 



INDEX 



799 



Hesse-Cassel, revolutionary move- 
ments in (1830), 112; supports 
Austria in the war of 1866, 263; 
Elector of, taken prisoner by 
Prussia, 264; incorporated in the 
Prussian Kingdom, 267 

Hesse-Darmstadt, granted constitu- 
tion (1820), 37; supports Aus- 
tria in the war of 1866, 263 

Hetairia Philike (1814), 605 

Hohenlohe, German Chancellor, 
189-'f-1900, 323 

Hohenzollern, The Spanish can- 
didacy of Leopold of, 290-292; 
619 

Holland, acquisitions of, by Treaty 
of Paris (1814), 3; King of, a 
member of the German Confed- 
eration, 31 ; and the Congress of 
Vienna, 101 ; and the Belgians, 
101-104; influence of the July 
Revolution (1830) in, 103; Bel- 
gium becomes a kingdom inde- 
pendent of, 105; New, 531; Eng- 
land seizes Cape Colony, a pos- 
session of, 536; stations of, in 
Africa (1815), 551; since 1830, 
579-581; rulers in, since 1830, 
579; Fundamental Law of 1815 
in, 579; Constitution of 1848 in, 
580; extension of the franchise 
in, 581 ; colonies of, 581 ; estab- 
lishes trade centers at the five 
treaty ports of China, 686; ob- 
tains a trading station on the 
peninsula of Deshima, 690; also 
called The Netherlands 

Holstein, member of German Diet, 
31, 257. See Schleswig-Holstein 

Holy Alliance (1815), Alexander 
I and, 14, 649; composition and 
character of, 14-16; and Metter- 
nich, 18; converted into an engine 
of oppression, 40; triumph of, 
in Naples, Piedmont, and Spain, 
63, 564; and the Spanish-Ameri- 
can colonies, 64-65; powerless- 
ness of (1830), 100; England's 
defiance of, 422, 608 

Holy Roman Empire, 29, 35 

Holyrood Palace, 98 

Home Government Association of 
Ireland. See Home Rule (Ire- 
land) 

Home Rule (Ireland), Movement, 
492; Party formed, 497; leaders 
of, party adopt policy of ob- 
struction, 498; party holds bal- 



Home Rule, continued 
ance of power (1886), 500; First 
Bill for (1886), 500-504; Sec- 
ond Bill for (1893), 507-509 

Hong Kong, ceded to England by 
China (1842), 685 

" Hopes of Italy " (1844) by 
Cesare Balbo, 165 

Hotel de Ville, Lafayette and 
Louis Philippe (1830) at, 97; 
meeting place of Provisional 
Government, 144, 191; proclama- 
tion of the French Republic at, 
297 

"House of Commons, The Rotten," 
by Lovett, 447 

Hudson Bay territory, English 
possession, 519, 523; purchased 
by the Dominion of Canada, 
1869, 529 

Hugo, Victor, 275 

Humbert I, King of Italy (1818- 
1900), succeeds his father, Vic- 
tor Emmanuel II, 380; reforms 
under, 381 ; and the Triple Al- 
liance ("i 882^), 382; assassination 
of (1900), 384 

Hundred Days, 13 

Hungarian Constitution before 
1848, 155 

Hungary, a part of the Austrian 
Empire, 23; races in, 24; gov- 
ernment of, 26; national and 
racial movement in, 154; consti- 
tution of, before 1848, 155; im- 
portance of the nobility in, 155; 
feudalism in, 155; Szechenyi and 
reform in, 156; the language 
question in the Diet of, 157; 
rise of a radical party in, 157; 
Kossuth, 158; demands of the 
Hungarians in 1841, 159; the 
decisive intervention of, 169; 
Kossuth's speech against Aus- 
tria, 169; Diet of, passes the 
March Laws, 170; becomes prac- 
tically independent, 171 ; civil 
dissension in, 176; Austria ex- 
ploits the situation in, 177; radi- 
cal party in, seizes control, 178; 
declares Francis Joseph a usurp- 
er, 179; war with Austria, 179; 
declares her independence, 179; 
conquered, 180; constitutional 
rights of, abolished, 180; Aus- 
tria's vengeance in, 180; attitude 
toward Austria in the Austro- 
Prussian War (1866), 266; Aus- 



800 



INDEX 



Hungary, continued 
tria's punishment of, 388; posi- 
tion of, in the Empire (1861), 
390; refuses to cooperate with 
Austria, 390; asserts her "his- 
toric rights," 391 ; demands 
restoration of her constitution 
of 18Jt8, 393; Compromise of 
1861, 393-396; Francis Joseph 
crowned King of (1867), 393; 
constitution (1848) restored, 395; 
Magyars, the dominant race in, 
395; divisive effect of the prin- 
ciple of nationality in, 396; op- 
position of Magyars to the de- 
mands of the Czechs in, 398; 
Kingdom of, since 1867, 402- 
405; the Magyars and the policy 
of Magyarization, 403; the 
Croatians in, 403; race ques- 
tions in, 403; struggle over the 
question of language in., 404; 
suffrage in, 404. See Austria- 
Hungary 

Hunt, at Peterloo, 421 ; speech on 
the Reform Bill, 433 

Huskisson, 423; economic reforms 
of, 423; reform in Navigation 
Laws, 1823-1825, 451 

Ibrahim, son of Mehemet Ali, 602; 
conquers Morea for Turkey, 
607; and the battle of Navarino, 
1827, 610 

Iceland, 594; granted home rule 
(1874), 595 

Ilchester, Borough of, 433 

Illiteracy, in Italy, 381 ; decline 
of, in England, 515; in Spain, 
575 

Illyrian Provinces, given to Aus- 
tria by Congress of Vienna, 8 

Imperial Federation (England), 
545-549; problem of, and its 
increasing importance, 546; dif- 
ficulties in the way of, 547; 
colonial conferences and, 548; 
confederations within the Em- 
pire, 549 

Imperialism, in England, 487; 
Joseph Chamberlain and, 511 

India, French possessions (1815) 
in, 371; Civil Service in, 482; 
Queen of England proclaimed 
Empress of (1877), 489, 522; 
English possessions in, prior to 
1815, 519; work of the East 
India Company in, 519-520; 



India, continued 
overthrow of the Mahratta con- 
federacy in (1816-1818) 520; 
England annexes the Punjab in 
(1845-1849), 520; Sepoy Mutiny 
in (1857), 520-521; government 
of, transferred to the Crown 
(1858), 522; declared an Em- 
pire (1876), 523; government of, 
522; population of, 522; and the 
South African War (1899), 544; 
and the Opium War, 685 

Indian Mutiny, 521 

Indian Ocean, French colonial ex- 
pansion in, under the Third Re- 
public, 373; French colony of 
Madagascar in, 374 

Indo-China, French colonial ex- 
pansion in, under the Third Re- 
public, 373, 681 

Industrial Legislation; — in France, 
under the Provisional Govern- 
ment (1848),^ 191-192;— in Eng- 
land, agitation for improved 
conditions of labor by Owen, 
Sadler, Fielden, and Ashley, 
442; Factory Act of 1833, 442; 
Labor in Mines Act of 1842, 
455; Factory Acts of 1844, 
1847, and 1850, 456; Factory 
and Workshop Consolidation 
Act of 1878, 456; Act (1889) 
regulating the employment of 
women and children, 506-507; 
Factory and Workshop Act of 
1901, 457;— in New Zealand, 
535-536 

Industrial Revolution, in France, 
137; in Austria, 153; in Ger- 
many, 244; in England, 406-409; 
in Russia, 673-676; rise of the 
factory system, 722 

Inglis, Sir Robert, speech of, in 
opposition to the Reform Bill, 
432; Macaulay's reply to, 434 

Inheritance tax, in England, 511; 
in New Zealand, 535 

Initiative, The, in Switzerland, 589- 
590 

Inkermann, battle of, 614 

Inquisition, The, in Spain, 47; in 
the States of the Church, 55 

Institute of Mining Engineers at 
St. Petersburg, Resolution of, 
on the war with Japan, 706-707 

Insurance Laws, Germany, Sick- 
ness (1883), Accident (1884 
and 1885), Old Age (1889), 316 



INDEX 



801 



Insurance, State, Germany and, 
315-31G; Austria and, 400; Eng- 
land and, 459, 515-516; New 
Zealand and, 535-536; Denmark 
and, 594 

Interpellation, Ri2;ht of, granted 
in France (1861), 281 

Intervention, Doctrine of the 
right of, 58-60; application of, 
see also Congresses and Holy 
Alliance 

Ionian Islands, occupied by Eng- 
land, 9; protectorate of England 
over, 519; England cedes, to 
Greece, 186 -'t, 634 

Ireland, Representation in House 
of Commons (1815), 410; suf- 
frage in, 426; O'Connell founds 
the Catholic Association in, 427; 
O'Connell elected to Parliament 
from County of Clare, 427; re- 
striction of the suflFrage in, 428; 
given increased representation, 
437; famine of iS-)5-iS//7, 453, 
469; Reform Bill (1868) for, 464; 
Gladstone and, 467; condition 
(1815) in, 467-469; Catholic 
Emancipation Act (1829), 469; 
franchise qualification in, raised, 
469; Repeal agitation in, 469; 
O'Connell and the Irish party 
in, 469; Young Ireland, 469; de- 
cline of the population in, 470; 
and the Fenian Movement, 470; 
suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
Act in, 470; the Irish Church, 
468, 471; the tithe war in, 472; 
disestablishment of the Irish 
Church (1869), 472; system of 
land tenure in, 472-474; misery 
of the peasants in, 474; the 
Ulster system of land tenure in, 
475; Land Act of 1870, 475- 
477; Irish University Bill of 
1873 defeated, 485; failure of 
the Land Act of 1870, 490; the 
Three F's, Land Act of 1881 
and the Land Court, 491; Re- 
form Bill (1884) for, 493; and 
the Home Rule Movement, 497; 
Home Rulers hold balance 
of power (1886), 500; First 
Home Rule Bill (1886), 500-504; 
Land Purchase Bill introduced, 
1886, 501 ; policy of coercion for, 
under the Second Salisbury Min- 
istry, 505; Land Purchase Act, 
1891, 505-506; Land Act of 



Ireland, contirt/ued 
1903, 506; Second Home Rule 
Bill (1893), 507-509; Land Pur- 
chase Act of 1896, 512; Local 
Government Act (1898), 512; 
Old Age Pensions Law in, 516; 
Irish University or Birrell Act 
(1908), 516 

Irish Church, position of, in 1815, 
468, 471; and the Tithe War, 
472; disestablishment of (1869), 
473 

Irish Local Government Act, 1898, 
512 

Irish University, established (1908) 
by the Birrell Act, 516 

Isabella II, of Spain (1833-1868), 
daughter of Ferdinand VII, 
proclaimed Queen, 566; declared 
of age (1843), 568; absolutism 
of, 5(59; overthrow of, 290, 569; 
abdicates in favor of her son 
Alfonso, 570 

Islands, The, of Denmark, Fred- 
erick VI grants a (?onsultative 
assembly to, 592; Frederick VII 
grants a constitution (1849) to, 
593 

Isle of France, retained by Eng- 
land in 1815, 9 

Ismail, Viceroy of Egypt, 1883- 
1866, Khedive of Egypt 1866- 
1879, extravagance of, 558; sells 
shares in the Suez Canal Com- 
pany to England (1875), 558; 
abdicates, 559 

Italian War of 1859, 313, 225-229 

Italy, decision of the Congress of 
Vienna concerning, 8-10, 52; the 
Metternich system in, 28; reac- 
tion and revolution in, 50-63; 
Napoleon on Italian unity, 50; 
significance of Napoleon's activ- 
ity in, 51; awakening of, 51- 
52; dominance of Austria in, 53- 
54; government in, 53-56; the 
Carbonari in, 56; revolution in 
Naples (1820), 57; revolution in 
Piedmont (1821), 61; influence 
of the July Revolution (1830) 
in, 100; revolutions in, 110-113; 
conditions in, after the revolu- 
tions of 1820, 110; revolutionary 
movements (1831) in, 110; Aus- 
trian intervention in, HI; the 
French seize Ancona, 111; re- 
sults of the insurrections in, 
111-113; 183 0-18 48, 159-168; 



802 



INDEX 



Italy, continued 
after 1831, 159; Mazzini, 160- 
164; Young Italy, 161; Gioberti, 
164-165; D'Azeglio, 165; Balbo, 
165; the Risorgimento, 166; elec- 
tion and policy of Pius IX in, 
166; reforms in Tuscany and 
Piedmont, 167; revolution in the 
Kingdom of Naples (18/i8), 167; 
revolution in Lombardy-Venetia, 
172; renounces Austrian con- 
trol, 173; March (18J,8) revo- 
lutions triumphant in, 174; par- 
tially conquered, 175; battle of 
Custozza (1848) in, 176; con- 
quest of, completed, 181 ; battle 
of Novara, 181; French inter- 
vention in Rome, 183; fall of 
Venice, 182; reaction in, after 
1848, 215; Victor Emmanuel II, 
King of Piedmont, and the mak- 
ing of the Kingdom of, 216; 
Cavour, 216-239; Piedmont joins 
England and France in a war 
against Russia in the Crimea, 
219; the Congress of Paris dis- 
cusses the question of, 220; cam- 
paign of 1859 in, 225, 389; bat- 
tles of Magenta and Solferino, 
225; Peace of Villafranca, 225; 
situation in Central, 228; Eng- 
land's participation in aifairs 
in, 229; Modena, Parma, Tus- 
cany, and the Romagna added 
to the Kingdom of Piedmont, 
230; cession of Savoy and 
Nice to France (1860), 231; 
Sicily and Naples conquered by 
Garibaldi in the name of Victor 
Emmanuel II, 234-235; Pied- 
montese troops enter the 
Marches and Umbria, 236; an- 
nexation of the Kingdom of 
Naples and of Umbria and the 
Marches to Piedmont, 236; all, 
excepting Rome and Venice, 
united under Victor Emmanuel 
II (1861), 237; Bismarck's 
treaty of alliance with, 261 ; and 
the war of 1866, 263; battle 
of Custozza (1866), 265; Venetia 
ceded to (1866), 267, 376; neu- 
trality of, in Franco-German 
War, 294; takes possession of 
Rome (1870), 301 ; completion of 
unification of, 301 ; Kingdom 
of, 376-387 ; difficulties confront- 
ing the new kingdom of, 376; the 



Italy, continued 
constitution of, 377; and the 
question of the Papacy, 378; 
Law of Papal Guarantees, 378; 
the Curia Romana, 379; financial 
status of, 380; death of Victor 
Emmanuel II (1878) and ac- 
cession of his son Humbert I, 
380; the educational problem in, 
380; compulsory education laws, 
1877 and 1904 in, 381; exten- 
sion of the suffrage (1882) in, 
381; and the Triple Alliance 
(1882), 321, 382; Depretis Min- 
istry, 382; Crispi ministries, 382- 
383; colonial policy, 382; eco- 
nomic distress, 383; riots of 
(1889) in, 383; policy of repres- 
sion, 383, and the war with 
Abyssinia (1896), 383; Rudini 
Ministry, 383; riots of May 
(1898) in, 383; assassination of 
Humbert I (1900), 384; acces- 
sion and character of Victor 
Emmanuel HI, 384; increasing 
prosperity of, 384-387; emigra- 
tion from, to South America and 
the United States, 386; growth 
of, 546; acquisitions of, in Africa 
(1884-1890), 554; at the Con- 
ference of the Powers (1876), 
554; at the Berlin Conference 
(1884-1885), 555; attitude of, 
toward the breaches of the Ber- 
lin Treaty of 1878, 629, 640 

Ito, Count, 694 

Jahn, persecution of, 43; released, 
150 

Jamaica, slavery abolished in 
(1833), 442; English possession, 
519 

Jameson, Dr., 542 

Janina, Ali of, 602 

Japan, the country and its civiliza- 
tion, 687-688; the government of, 
688-689; advent of Europeans 
in, 689; adopts policy of isola- 
tion, 690; treaty with the United 
States (1854), 691; abolition of 
the Shogunate in, 692; trans- 
formation of, 692; abolition of 
the old regime (1871), 693; 
adopts European institutions, 
693-694; becomes a constitu- 
tional state, 694; drives the 
Chinese from Korea (1894) and 
invades Manchuria, 695; Treaty 



INDEX 



803 



Japan, aontinued 

of Shiraonoseki (1895), 695-696; 
intervention of Russia, France, 
and Germany, 696; relinquishes 
Port Arthur and the Liao-tung 
peninsula, 696; helps to rescue 
the legations in Peking, 698; 
Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902, 
700; makes war upon Russia 
(1904-1905), 701-702; Port Ar- 
thur surrenders to, 703; cap- 
tures Mukden, 702; destroys 
Russian fleet, 702; signs Treaty 
of Portsmouth (1905), 702-703; 
and Korea, 703 note 

Java, 581 

Jeifrey, Francis, on the steam 
engine, 408 

Jellachich, appointed governor of 
Croatia, 177; begins civil war, 
178; given command of all the 
Austrian troops in Hungary, 
178; victories of, 179 

Jena, Students of, and the Bur- 
schenschaf t, 39 . 

Jesuits, in Spain, 47; in Piedmont, 
54; in France, 86; in Germany, 
306; expelled from Germany, 
308; expelled from France 
(1880), 353; suppressed in 
Spain, 569; expelled from Swit- 
zerland, 586 

Jews, admitted to the House of 
Commons, 458; persecution of, 
in Russia, 672 

Johannesburg, 541 

John VI, King of Portugal, flees 
to Brazil, 1807, 575; returns to 
Portugal and accepts the Consti- 
tution of 1822, 576; death of, 
1826, 576 

Joseph, brother of Napoleon I, 
45, 574 

Joseph n, of Austria, 24 

Josephine, Empress, 90, 127 

Juarez, President of Mexico, 277, 
279 

July Monarchy, 114-144. See 
Louis Philippe 

July Ordinances (1830), 92; with- 
drawn, 96 

July Revolution of 1830, 95; wide- 
spread influence of, 100; in Bel- 
gium, 103-104; in Poland, 108; 
in Italy, 110; in Germany, 112 

June Days (18Jf8, France), 194 

Jutland, Frederick VI grants a 
consultative assembly to, 592; 



Jutland, continued 

Frederick VII grants a consti- 
tution (1849) to, 593 

Kagoshima, 691 

Kamerun, German colony in Af- 
rica, 319 

Kara George, revolt of the Ser- 
vians under 180 f/, 604; murder 
of, 1817, 604; House of, 633 

Kars, 626 

Kent, Duke of, father of Queen 
Victoria, 445 

Khartoum, 561-562 

Kiauchau, 697 

Kiel, 259; Treaty of (1814), 592, 
598 

Kioto, 688; Mikado leaves, 692; 
University established at, 693 

Kissingen, battle of, 265 

Kitchener, Lord, in the South Af- 
rican War (1899-1902), 543-544; 
recovers the Soudan, 1896-1898, 
562 

Koniggratz, or Sadowa, battle of, 
between Prussia and Austria 
(1866), 265; importance of, to 
France, 288 

Koraes, edits the Greek classics, 
605 

Korea, and the Chino-Japanese 
War (1894), 695; China recog- 
nizes the complete independence 
of, 696; Japan's apprehension 
concerning, 699; the Anglo- Jap- 
anese Treaty of 1902 and, 700; 
Japanese armies enter, 701 ; 
Russo-Japanese War in (190'/- 
1905), 701-702; by the Treaty 
of Portsmouth (1905) Russia 
recognizes Japan's paramount 
interests in, 702; Japan and, 
703 note 

Kossuth, Francis, son of Louis 
Kossuth, and his party, 404 

Kossuth, Louis, leader of the lib- 
eral party in Hungary, 157; 
speech in the Diet (18^8), 169; 
comes into power, 178; appoint- 
ed President of Hungary, 179; 
resigns in favor of Gorgei, 180; 
flees to Turkey, 180 

Kotzebue, murder of, 40, 649 

Kruger, Paul, 538 

Krupp, Alfred, 244 

Kulturkampf, 306-309 

Kuropatkin, General, 701 



804 



INDEX 



Labourdonnaye, Minister of the In- 
terior, 90 

Ladrone Islands, purchased by 
Germany from Spain (1899), 
319 

Lafayette, elected to the Chamber 
of Deputies, 78; a leader of the 
Republicans in the July Revolu- 
tion (1830), 97, 133; and the pro- 
gressive party, 119; and the 
Greek War of Independence, 
608 

Lafiitte, and the progressive party 
in France, 119, 130 

Laharpe, Colonel, tutor of Alex- 
ander I of Russia, 646 

Laibach, Congress of (1821), 60 

La Marmora, General, 222 

Lamarque, General, 123 

Lamartine, 129, 136; emergence of, 
14)1; leader of the Repub- 
licans in the Provisional Govern- 
ment, 143, 188; on the question 
of the tiag, 190; head of the 
executive of the National Con- 
stituent Assembly, 193; on the 
mode of electing the president, 
197; candidate for the presi- 
dency of the Republic, 200 

Lancashire, boroughs of, 433; 
gain in House of Commons by 
Redistribution Act of 1885, 494 

Land Acts (Ireland), 1870, 475- 
477; failure of, 490; 1881, 491, 
499; proposed 1886, 501, 505; 
1891, 505-500; 1896, 512; 1903, 
506 

Land Court (Ireland), 491 

Landesgemeinde cantons, 588 

Langensalza, battle of, Han- 
overians defeat the Prussians at, 
264 

Lassalle, Ferdinand, founds the 
Socialist party in Germany, 
312; founds a journal, the So- 
cial Democrat (1865), 312; 
reading of his works prohibited, 
314 

Lateran, 379 

Lauenburg, Denmark renounces 
all rights to, 259; bought by 
Prussia, 260 

Law of Associations, i90i (France), 
366 

Law of Papal Guarantees (1871), 
378 

Leboeuf, Marshal (Minister of 
War), 295 



Ledru-Rollin, Socialist candidate 
for the presidency of the Sec- 
ond Republic, 200 
Leeds, unrepresented in Parlia- 
ment (1815), 414 
Legations, The, 223 
Legitimacy, Principle of, at Con- 
gress of Vienna, 5-6; disregard- 
ed, 11 
Legitimists (France), 122 
Legnago, 173 

Leipsic, retained by King of Sax- 
ony at Congress of Vienna, 8; 
celebration of anniversary of, 
at Wartburg, 39; battle of, com- 
pared with Koniggratz, 265 

Leo XIII, Pope, 1878-1903, elec- 
tion of, 309, 380; advises con- 
ciliatory policy toward the Third 
Republic (France), 1893, 357, 
368; attitude toward the Law 
of Papal Guarantees (1871), 
379 

Leopold of Coburg, elected King 
of Belgium, 104. See Leopold 
I, King of Belgium 

Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern- 
Sigmaringen, candidacy of, for 
the throne of Spain, 1869-1870, 
290, 570, withdrawn, 291, 570 

Leopold I, King of Belgium, iS5i- 
1865, 279; and the political 
education of Queen Victoria, 
445; reign of, 581-582 

Leopold II, King of Belgium, 
1865-1909, and the Congo Free 
State, 554-557; calls a confer- 
ence of the Powers, ^876, 554; 
Congress of Berlin, 1884-1885, 
555; criticism of his adminis- 
tration, 556; death of, 582 

Lesseps, Ferdinand de, and the 
Suez Canal, 558 

Letter Patent of February, 1847 
(Prussia), 151 

Liao-tung peninsula, Japan occu- 
pies, 695; China cedes, to Japan 
(1895), 696; Japan relinquishes, 
696; the Japanese invade, 701; 
Russia transfers, to Japan 
(1905), 703 

Liao-jJ-ang, battle of, 702 

Liebknecht, Socialist leader, 313 

Liechtenstein, 30 

Lin, Chinese Viceroy, and the 
Opium War (1840-1842), 685 

Lissa, Italian fleet defeated by 
the Austrian (1866), 265 



INDEX 



805 



Literature, in the nineteenth cen- 
tury, 719 

Lithuanian provinces, Poland and, 
663; persecution of the Jews in, 
672 

Liverpool, 465; gain in House of 
Commons by Redistribution Act 
of 1885, 494; and the problem 
of transportation, 723, 725 

Liverpool, Lord, and the Six Acts, 
422 

Livingstone, David, 1813-1873, Af- 
rican explorations of, 552-553 

Livonia, 645 

Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom ac- 
quired by Austria at Congress of 
Vienna, 8, 23, 52-53; govern- 
ment of, 53-54; revolution in, 
172, 388; reaction in, after 18^8, 
215; agreement at Plombieres 
concerning, 223; Austria loses 
(1859-1866), 404 

Lombardy, acquired by Austria at 
Congress of Vienna, 9; revolu- 
tion in, 172; Austria recovers, 
176; reaction in, after 18^8, 
215; war in (1859), 225; Sar- 
dinia receives, by the Peace 
of Villafranca, 226; illiteracy 
in (1861), 381; Austria loses, 
389 

London, Conferences of the 
Powers in (1830-1831), recog- 
nize the Kingdom of Belgium, 
105; Conference (1840), Eng- 
land, Russia, Austria, and Prus- 
sia make a treaty with Turkey, 
132; Protocol (1852) concerning 
S c h 1 e s w i g-Holstein, 257-258 ; 
Conference (1864) unsuccessful, 
258; gain of, hy Redistribu- 
tion Act of 1885, 494; jour- 
nals of, oppose Irish Home 
Rule, 504; Gladstonlan vote in 
(1886), 504; the Old Age Pen- 
sions Law in the County of, 
516; Convention of (1884), 
540; Colonial Conferences in, 
548; Treaty of (1827), 609 

London Standard, 419 

London Telegraph, October 28, 
1908, interview with Emperor 
William II, 327 

London Times, on cause of the 
Prussian victory at Konig- 
gratz, 266; on the Dreyfus Case, 
382 

Lonsdale, Lord, 413 



Lorraine, Germans invade, 296; 
large part of, ceded to Ger- 
many by Treaties of Versailles 
and Frankfort, 300j in the Ger- 
man Empire, 303; loss of, by 
France,, 337. 

Loubet, Emile, President of the 
French Republic (1899-1906), 
361; pardons Dreyfus, 362; visits 
Victor Emmanuel III (1904), 
368 

Louis Napoleon ('King of Hol- 
land), 110, 127 

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Na- 
poleon III) (son of Louis Na- 
poleon), 127-128; Boulogne fiasco, 
129 ; favors the restoration of the 
Pope, 182; opportunity of, 198; 
his previous career, 199; elected 
a member of the Constituent 
Assembly, 199; a candidate for 
the presidency, 199; causes of 
his triumph, 200; elected presi- 
dent, December 10, 1848, 200; 
combines with the Legislative As- 
sembly to crush the Republi- 
cans, 201-202; demands the re- 
vision of the Constitution in 
order to prolong his Presidency, 
203; Assembly votes against re- 
vision of the Constitution, 203; 
prepares for a coup d'etat, 203; 
demands from Assembly the re- 
peal of the Franchise Law of 
1850, 203; coup d'etat of Decem- 
ber 2, 1851, 204; his proclama- 
tions, 204; appeals to the people, 
205; proclaimed Emperor, De- 
cember 2, 1852, 205-206; char- 
acter of, 206; his programme, 
207; his powers, 208-209; his 
marriage, 210; his activities, 
211; general prosperity under, 
212; with England and Pied- 
mont wages war against Russia 
in the Crimea, 212; Congress of 
Paris (1856), 212; birth of an 
heir, 212; his policy of peace, 
213; Cavour and, 220-227; his 
interest in Italy, 222; interview 
at Plombieres, 222; commands his 
army in Italian campaign, 225; 
interview with the Emperor 
Francis Joseph I at Villafranca, 
225; reasons for his action, 226; 
bargain with Cavour, 230; an- 
nexes Savoy and Nice, 231 ; re- 
sentment of England toward, 



806 



INDEX 



Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, con- 
tinued 

231, 274; approves of the in- 
vasion of the Papal States by 
the Piedmontese, 236; methods 
of, copied by Frederick William 
IV, of Prussia, 242-243; dis- 
astrous effect of the Italian war 
upon, 272; vacillation of, 273; 
makes secret treaty of com- 
merce (1860) with England, 274; 
turns to the Liberals, 275; in- 
creases powers of Parliament, 275 ; 
and the Mexican Expedition, 277, 
569; overthrows the Mexican Re- 
public, 278; failure of the ex- 
pedition, 279; effects of the fail- 
ure upon, 280; grants conces- 
sions to liberalism, 280; attacks 
upon, 282; transformation of the 
Empire completed under, 283; 
unwise adherence to his doctrine 
of nationalities, 285; attitude to- 
ward Schleswig-Holstein affair 
(1864), 286; meeting at Biar- 
ritz (1865), 260, 286; fails to 
use his opportunity in 1866, 
287; failure of diplomacy of, 
288; attitude toward the candi- 
dacy of Prince Leopold for the 
Spanish throne, 290; fails to 
secure alliances with the Powers, 
294; surrenders to King Wil- 
liam I of Prussia at Sedan 
(1810), 297; growth of the So- 
cialists under, 331-332; and the 
Third Republic, 341; conquests 
under, 373; attitude toward 
Russia (1854), 613; and the 
Danubian Principalities (1859), 
618 

Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, 
King of the French (1830-181,8), 
candidacy of, QQ; made Lieu- 
tenant-General of France, 96; 
proclaimed King, 98; recognized 
by the Powers, 100; favors elec- 
tion of Leopold of Coburg as 
King of Belgium, 104; attitude 
toward the revolutionary move- 
ments (1831) in Italy, 110; 
reign of, 114-144; career of, 
114; his liberalism, 114; his legal 
title to the throne, 115; and the 
revised Constitution, 116; the 
franchise lowered (1831), 117; 
character of the July Monarchy, 
117; insecurity of the regime, 



Louis Philippe, continued 

118; the progressive and con- 
servative parties under, 119; 
popular unrest, 120; Casimir- 
Perier Ministry, 120-121; and 
the Legitimists, 122; Republican 
insurrections (1832), 123; vigor- 
ous measures of the government, 
124; attempts upon the life of, 
125; the September Laws 
(1835), 125-126; and the Na- 
poleonic legend, 127-129; per- 
sonal government of, 131; min- 
istry of Thiers, 131-132; minis- 
try of Guizot, 133-142; industrial 
revolution, 137; growth of social- 
ism under, 138-139; opposition to 
the policy of the Government, 
139-142; overthrow of, 142-143; 
influence of his fall in Central 
Europe, 169; conquests of, 373 

Louis I, King of Bavaria, aids 
Greeks, 608; son of, becomes 
King of Greece, 1833, 611 

Louis I, King of Portugal (1861- 
1889), 577 

Louis XV, King of France, loss of 
colonial empire under, 371 

Louis XVI, King of France, 92, 114 

Louis XVIII, King of France, 
(1814-1824), restored to the 
French throne, 2; and the First 
Treaty of Paris (1814), 3; and 
the Second Treaty of Paris 
(1815), 13; and Alexander I, 16, 
647; reign of, 66-83; and the 
Constitutional Charter (1814), 
67-70; character of, 70; difficul- 
ties of his situation, 71-75; the 
White Terror, 73; prorogues the 
Chamber, 74; checks the Ultras, 
74; and the Congress of Aix-la- 
Chapelle, 75; sends army into 
Spain (1823), 82; death of, 82; 
character of his reign, 98 

Louvel, assassin of Duke of Berry, 
80 

Lovett, Author of " The Rotten 
House of Commons" 447 

Lowe, Robert, on the Reform Bill 
of 1861, 464; in the Gladstone 
Ministry (1868), 465 

Lowell, A. L., on the franchise in 
England, 495-496; on the peo- 
ple of India, 522 

Liibeck, member of the North Ger- 
man Confederation, 268; mem- 
ber of the German Empire, 304 



INDEX 



807 



Lucca, 52 

Lucerne, 584 

Lucknow, 521 

Luxembourg Palace, Labor Com- 
mission meets at, 191 

Luxemburg, member of the Ger- 
man Confederation, 31 

Lyons, Republican insurrection in 
(ISSIf), 124; insurrection of 
workingmen in, 138 

Lytton, Lord, Viceroy of India, 
*522 

Maassen, financial reformer of 
Prussia, 148 

Macaulay, Thomas Babington, on 
the First Reform Bill, 434; on 
Gladstone, 466 

Macaulay, Zachary, and the anti- 
slavery agitation, 440 

Macedonia, and the Treaty of San 
Stefano, 1818, 624; disposition 
of, by Congress of Berlin, i878, 
625; question of, 627 

Mackintosh, and the Penal Code, 
424 

MacMahon, Marshal, defeated in 
the battle of Worth, 296; chosen 
President of the French Repub- 
lic, 342; establishment of the 
Septennate, 343; struggle with 
the Chamber, 348-349; his con- 
ception of the presidency, 349; 
resigns, 351; the Roman Catholic 
Church and the Republic under, 
366 

Madagascar, France sends expe- 
dition to, 353; French colony, 
374 

Madeira, part of the Kingdom of 
Portugal, 578 

Madrid, riots in (1820), 49; the 
Congress of Verona and the 
Madrid Government, 62-63; the 
Christines control, 566 

Magenta, battle of, 225, 725 

Mahratta Confederacy, Overthrow 
of, 520 

Magyars, position of, in Hungary, 
24, 154, 176; succeed in making 
Magyar the official language in 
Hungary (18U), 157; the 
Croatians rise against, 177-178; 
Francis Joseph I and, 388; Aus- 
gleich satisfactory to, 394; op- 
pose the demands of the Czechs, 
398; and the policy of Magyariza- 
tion, 403; Francis Kossuth, lead- 



Magyars, continued 

er of a party of, 404; oppose 
the " occupation " of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, 405 

Mahdi, leader of revolt in the 
Soudan, 561-562 

Mahmud H, Sultan, refuses the 
armistice of the Treaty of Lon- 
don (1827), 609-610; war with 
Russia (1828), 610; signs Treaty 
of Adrianople (1829), 611 

Majuba Hill (1881), 539 

Malta, retained by England in 
1815, 9, 519 

Manchester, unrepresented in Par- 
liament (1815), 414, 434-435; 
Anti-Corn-Law League founded 
at, 1839, 452; and the problem 
of transportation, 723, 725 

Manchuria, invaded by the Jap- 
anese, 695; Russian entrance 
into, 697; Russian activity in, 
699; Russo-Japanese War in, 
701-702; disposition of, by 
Treaty of Portsmouth (1905), 
703 

Manifesto of August 19, 1905 
(Russia), 710-711 

Manifesto of October 30, 1905 
(Russia), 712 

Manin, Daniel, Republican leader 
in Venice, 173; on Italy, 221 

Manitoba, admitted into the Do- 
minion of Canada, 1870, 529 

Manuel, elected to the French 
Chamber of Deputies, 78 

Manuel II, King of Portugal, 
1908—, 578 

March Days (1848), Hungary, 
170, 174 

March Laws (Hungary), 18^8, 
170-171, 177, 179 

Marches, The, 235; annexed to 
Piedmont (1860), 236 

Maria Christina, Queen Regent of 
Spain, 574 

Maria da Gloria (Maria II), 
Queen of Portugal, 1826-1828, 
1834-1853; Civil War with Dom 
Miguel, 577; death of, 577 

Marie, Minister of Commerce, 192 

Marie Louise, wife of Napoleon I, 
receives Parma, 9; forced to flee 
from Parma, 110 

Maritime Province, acquired by 
Russia from China (1860), 682, 
687 

Maritza, 621 



SOS 



INDEX 



Maroiont, Commander of the 
troops in Paris (ISSO), 95 

Marrast, in the Provisional Gov- 
ernment, ISS 

Marseilles, uprisings in, 7S, 133 

Mars-la-Tours, Germans defeat 
French at, '296 

Martignac Ministry, S9 

Martinique, French possession, 
1S15, 371 

Marx, Karl, and Socialism in Ger- 
many, 31:5 

Massa,' '333 

Massawa, seized bv Italv (ISSoK 
SS2 

Mauritius, Slavery in, abolished 
by England, 439-440; English 
possession (ISld), 519 

Maximilian, Archdxike of Austria, 
offered the imperial crown of 
Mexico, 57S; disastrous outcome 
of the adventure, 21:9 x death of. 
2S0 

May Laws (Prussia, 1$73, 1S74, 
lS7o), 30S 

Mazzini, Joseph (1$05-1S72), 160- 
164; early life, 160; his intense 
patriotism, 161; founder of 
"Young Italy," 161; methods 
and aims of the society, 163- 
163; and Pius IX concerning 
Italy, 167; one of the Triumvirs 
of Rome, 181; compared with 
Cavour. 317, 319; on education, 
SSI 

Mecklenburg, Government of, S6; 
and the ZoUverein, 149 

Mecklenburg-Schwerin, in the 
North German Confederation, 
369 

Mehemet Ali, Viceroy of Egypt, 
war with Turkey, 131; founds a 
semi-royal house, 557-ooS, 603; 
Sultan asks aid of, against the 
Greeks, 607 

Melbourne, Lord, in the Grey Min- 
istry (ISSl), 430; and the'pditi- 
cal education of Queen Victoria, 
445; fall of ministry of (IS^l), 
451 

Melikoff, Loris, 669 

Meline, Prime Minister, and the 
Dreyfus Case, 360 

Menel'ek, ruler of Abyssinia, SS3 

Metternich, at Congress of Vienna, 
4; and the Austrian policy, 9; 
and the Holy Alliance, 15; and 
the Q\iadruple Alliance, IS; 



Metternich, continued 
characterization and historical 
importance of, 30-33; and Fran- 
cis I, 25; his system and its 
application in other countries, 
37-3S, 35, 37-3S, 5S-64; and the 
German xiniversities and the 
press, 39-43; conferences at 
Carlsbad, 41-44; doctrine of the 
right of intervention, 58-59; and 
the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, 
59; his prijiciple of intervention 
accepted, 59 ; triumph of his sys- 
tem, 63; his system checked, 65$ 
opinion of the Polignac Min- 
istry of Charles X, 90; and 
Charles X, 93; and the July 
Kevolution (1$30), 100; on Italy, 
110; intervention of, in the 
Papal States, 111; supreme in 
Germany, 113; estimate of the 
July Monarchy, llS-119, 145; 
control of, in Aiistria (1$15- 
1S4S), 153; and Pius IX, 166; 
overthrow of, 170; opinion of 
Cavour, 331; and the Greek War 
of Independence, 60S; Alex- 
ander I and, 649 

Metz, 29d; fall of, 39S 

Mexico, 48; expedition into, 377- 
379, 569 

Michel, General, 295 

Miguel, Dom, King of Portugal, 
(1S2$-1S34K younger son of 
John VI, King* of Portugal, 576; 
proclaimed King, J8,?8, 577; Civil 
War with Maria da Gloria, 577; 
renoxinces claims to throne 
(1SS4>, 577 

Mikado of Japan, 688; and the 
Shogunate, 691-693; recovers 
power, Q92 

Milan, insurrection in, 173; oc- 
cupied by the French and 
Sardinians' (1S59), 335; riots in 
(1SS9 ),SSS', riots in (J8i)6J),383 

Milan, Kina; of Servia, forced to 
abdicate, i8SP, 633 

Militarism, spread of, 738; ex- 
pense of, 738-739 

Mill, John Stuart, speech in favor 
of suffrage for women, 464 

Milner, Sir Alfred, Reports on 
South Africa, 1S99, 543-543; on 
the rapid growth of the Egyp- 
tian debt, 558 

Milyoukov, 678 

Miiies, Labor in. Act (1$42), 455 



INDEX 



809 



.Mirjiicloii, I'Vciicli po.s.scs.sioi), IHirj, 

Mir, ^(ovcriimciil, of, M<i; culliva- 
lion of 1(111(1 in, (i.O.'i; \nn<\ f)rol>- 
Icrn in, (i.W; transforniution of, 
HIGH, 717 

Mi.s.soloii^riii, Hir-fre of ( JH2r,-lH2(J), 
iii\<\ fall of, (i07-(J0H 

Modcii.'i, Aii.stri.'in restoration in, 
!>, ^>2-tt'A; ruler of, forced to 
llee, 110; r<;Ktoration of the 
DiiUe of, 22(); annexed to Pied- 
mont (IH(U)), '2'M) 

Moli.iniincd V, Sultan of 'I'urkcy, 
I'.IO'.)- ., VA'.i 

Moldavia, JHir,, part of the Otto- 
man l<;mj)ire, fiOJ ; part of Bes- 
Baral)ia (u-.ded to, hy Treaty of 
I'aris f/H.n;), (i\B. Hee Dan- 
iihian J'rineipalities 

Mole, minister of Louis Philippe, 
i:{|, I.Ti 

Molesworth, on qiialifieations for 
.snlfi-afr*; in l)oroiif!;hs, -IM' noU) 

Moltke, Ilellmnlli von, Prussian 
CJeneral, i^Ol; plans for the in- 
vasion of IJohemia ir) the war 
n{2;ainst Austria (IHCtG), 205; 
siJ|)eriority of tlie armies under, 
2<i(i 

Mommsen, 246 

Monaco, 52 

Monifanr, The, 92 

Monro(; Doclrine, ()4'-65 

Montalemherl, ]f)9 

Monlcncf^ro, Slavs of, aid Her- 
zegovina, /iS7.7, 020; and Servia 
declare war against Turkey, 
1876, 622-023; complete inde- 
pendence of, recognized hy the 
Treaty of San Stefano, 1878, 
024; declared indejjendent by 
Congress of Herlin, 1H78, 025- 
020; vScrvia and, 041 

Montijo, Mile. Mugenie de, mar- 
ries Napoleon HI, 210. See 
Kmprcss Kug6nie 

Moral and Civil Primacy of the 
I lalimix," " The, hy Clioherti, 104 

Moravia, 2.'5; position in the Em- 
pire (J8(;ij, 390 

Morca, 005; conquered, 007; 
French army in. Oil 

Morlcy, Lord, on the labor code, 
450; on the secret ballot, 483- 
484; on Irish Home Rule, 501, 
508; on relations of England 
and the Transvaal, 540 



Morweo, 55 J, 001 

Moscow, population of, 675; stu- 
dents at the University of, 078; 
students in, revolt, 709; riots in, 
712 

Mukden, 701 ; captured by the Jap- 
anese, 702 

Munich, Dollingcr and the Univer- 
sity of, 307 

Muni c i p a 1 Corporations Act 
(IHHr,), England, 444. 

Murad V, 021 

Murat, King of Naples, 5, 51 

Music, in the nineteenth century, 
720 

Mulsuhito, J'lmperor of Japan, 
lH(n — , accession of, 092; grants 
a constitution (IHH'J), 694 

Nanking, Treaty of (J8J2), 085 

Naples, Kingdom of (Kingdom of 
the Two Sicilies), Murat, King 
of (181J,), 5, 51 ; the Congress of 
Vienna and, 52; Ferdinand 
I, King of, makes a treaty with 
Austria, 53; government of, 55- 
50; the Carbonari, 50; Revolu- 
tion of 1820 in, 57; constitution 
granted, 57; and the Congress of 
Troppau (1820), 59; and the 
Congress of Laibach (1821), 
00; Austria invades and restores 
absolutism in, 00-01 ; revolution 
in (I8/18), 107; cooperates in 
insurrection against Austria, 
173; recalls troops, 175-176; ab- 
solutism restored in, 181 ; 
reaction in, after 18/(8, 215; 
agreement at Plombit;res con- 
cerning, 223; conquest of, 232- 
237; Cavour's policy concerning, 
2;i4; Sicily invaded by Garibaldi 
(18(!0), 234; conquered, 235; 
flight of King Francis II, 235; 
annexed to Piedmont (1860), 
2rJ0-237; government of (1815- 
1860), 377; illiteracy in (1861), 
381 

Napoleon, Prince Jerome, be- 
trothed to Princess Clotilde, 223 

Napoleon I, Overthrow of, 1 ; 
escapes from Elba and seizes the 
government of T'rance, 13; the 
concert of Powers and, 17; on 
Italian unity, 50; significance of 
his activity in Italy, 51 ; the 
second funeral of, 128; the 
" Napoleonic Ideas " by Na- 



810 



INDEX 



Napoleon I, continued 
poleon III, 206; and the Con- 
cordat of 1801, 367; and Water- 
loo, 418; and Switzerland, 585; 
Alexander I of Russia and, 646; 
flight of, from Russia, 722 

Napoleon III. See Louis Na- 
poleon Bonaparte 

" Napoleonic Ideas," by Napoleon 
III, 206 

Nassau, 40; supports Austria in 
the war of 1866, 263; incorpo- 
rated in the Kingdom of Prus- 
sia, 267 

Natal, responsible government 
granted to (1893), 528; Boers 
migrate into, 537; made a colony 
of England (ISJfS), 538; posi- 
tion of, in the Union of South 
Africa (1909), 544-545 

National, The, 143 

National Constituent Assembly 
(18Ii8), France, 193 

National Defense (France, 1810), 
Government of, 298-300 

National Workshops (France), 
191-193; abolished, 194 

Navarino, battle of, 1821, 610 

Navigation, steam, 723-724 

Navigation Laws (England), 450; 
Huskisson's reforms of, 182S- 
1825, 451; abolished ^^8^9;, 454- 
455 

Nemours, Duke of, son of Louis 
Philippe, 131 

Netherlands, The. See Holland 
and Belgium 

New Brunswick, English pos- 
session (1815), 519, 523; re- 
sponsible government granted 
to (1848), 527; becomes a mem- 
ber of the Dominion of Canada 
(1867), 528 

New Caledonia, 336 

Newcastle, 724 

Newcomen, steam-engine made by 
(1705), 407 

Newfoundland, 371; English pos- 
session (1815), 519, 523; re- 
sponsible government granted to, 
527; and the Dominion of Can- 
ada, 529 

New Guinea, part of, owned by 
Germany, 319 

New Holland, 531 

New South Wales, responsible gov- 
ernment granted to, 527 ; Captain 
Cook's voyage to, 531 ; in the 



New South Wales, continued 
Australian Commonwealth, 532; 
New Zealand separated from 
(1865), 534 

New York Herald, and the Stan- 
ley expedition, 553 

New Zealand, Tasman's discovery 
of, 531; annexed to the British 
Empire, 1839, 534; given re- 
sponsible government, 1854, 527, 
534; made a separate colony, 
1865, 534; becomes Dominion of, 
(1907), 534; advanced social 
legislation, 535; system of taxa- 
tion, 535; industrial legislation, 
535; Old Age Pension Law 
(1898 and 1905), 536; woman 
suffrage in, 536; autonomy in, 
546, 549 

Nice, 223; annexed to France, 231 

Nicholas I, Tsar of Russia, 1825- 
1855, 108; aids Francis Joseph I 
of Austria against Hungary, 180, 
654; intervenes in the Greek War 
of Independence, 609; ambitions 
of, 611-612; attitude of Na- 
poleon III toward, 613; reign 
of, 650-655; accession and train- 
ing, 650; system of repression 
by police and censorship, 651- 
652; literature under, 652-653; 
abolishes capital punishment ex- 
cept for treason, 653; on serf- 
dom, 653; foreign policy of, 
653-654; the Crimean War 
(1854-1855), and the humiliation 
of Russia, 654; death of, 615, 
655 

Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, 
1894 — » accession and policy of 
repression, 676; increasing dis- 
affection under, 677; condition 
of the peasantry, 677; persecu- 
tion of the "intellectuals," 678; 
and Finland, 678-680; abrogates 
the Finnish constitution, 679; on 
the possession of the Liao-tung 
peninsula by the Japanese, 696; 
enters upon a more liberal 
policy, 708; demands of the 
liberals not granted by, 709; is- 
sues the Manifesto of August 
19, 1905, 710; and the Manifesto 
of October 30, 1905, 712; and 
a decree constituting the Coun- 
cil of the Empire, 713; the "or- 
ganic laws " issued in the name 
of, 713; and the First Duma, 



INDEX 



811 



Nicholas II, continued 

713-715; and the Second Duma, 
715-716; alters the electoral sys- 
tem, 716; and the Third Duma, 
716; and the transformation of 
the mir, 717; restores the liber- 
ties of Finland, 717-718; on the 
limitation of armaments (1S98), 
729; and the First Peace Con- 
ference at the Hague (1899), 
730-733; and the Second Peace 
Conference at the Hague 
(1901), 734 

Niebuhr, on the Papal States, 55 

Nihilism, Rise of, 666; Stepniak 
and Turgenieff on, 666; persecu- 
tion of the Nihilists, 667; be- 
comes socialistic, 667; propa- 
ganda of, 667; policy of ter- 
rorism, 668-669 

Nikolsburg, Preliminary Peace of, 
263, 267 

Nile, sources of, discovered, 552 

Ningpo, opened to British trade 
by Treaty of Nanking (1842), 
685 

Nippon, 688 

Nogi, General, conducts the siege 
of Port Arthur, 701 

Nomination boroughs (England, 
1815), 413 

Normandy, German troops with- 
drawn from, 338 

North America, English posses- 
sions in (1815), 519; British, 
523-530 

North German Confederation, 
composition of, 268; government 
of (1867), 269, 303; alliance 
with the South German States, 
270-271 

North German Lloyd steamship 
line, established (1851), 724 

Norway, joined with Sweden, 10, 
592; Constitution of Eidsvold 
(1814), 595, 598; war with 
Sweden, 595-596; Union with 
Sweden, 596; rulers (1815- 
1905), 596-597; constitution of 
1866, 597; friction with Sweden, 
597-598; abolition of the Nor- 
wegian nobility, 599; dissolution 
of the Union with Sweden and 
Treaty of Carlstad (1905), 599- 
600; chooses Prince Charles of 
Denmark, who becomes Haakon 
VII (1905), 600; suffrage in, 
600 



Novara, battle of (1849), 62, 181, 
215 

Nova Scotia, English possession 
(1815), 519, 523; responsible 
government granted to (1848), 
527; becomes a member of the 
Dominion of Canada (1861), 
528 

Nyassa, Lake, 552 

Obrenovitch, Milosch, becomes 
" Hereditary Prince of the 
Servians" (1830), 604; House 
of, 633 

Obstruction, adoption of the policy 
of, by Irish Home Rulers, 493 

O'Connell, Daniel, founds the 
Catholic Association in Ireland, 
427; elected to Parliament, 427; 
and the Irish party, 469, 498 

O'Connor, Feargus, and the Chart- 
ist movement, 448 

Okhotsk, 681 

Oku, General, at Mukden, 701 

Old Age, Insurance Law (1889), 
Germany, 316; Pensions Act 
(1908), Great Britain, 515-516; 
Pension Law, New Zealand (1898 
and 1905), 536; Denmark 
(1891) 594 

Old Catholics, 307-308 

Old Sarum, 413, 432 

Ollivier, leader of the Third Party, 
282; becomes head of the minis- 
try, 283; and the HohenzoUern 
candidacy, 291, 293 

Olmiitz, flight of the Emperor to, 
178, 248, 388; Bismarck on the 
Convention of, 252-253 

Omdurman, battle of, 1898, 562 

Ontario, 527, 528, and see Canada 

Opium War, 1840-181,2, 685 

Orange Free State, founded by 
Boers from Cape Colony, 538; 
annexed to the British Empire 
(1848), 538; England renounces 
sovereignty over (1852), 538; 
and the South African War, 
1899-1902, 543-544; annexed to 
the British Empire (1902), 544; 
responsible government granted 
to (1901), 528, 544; position in 
the Union of South Africa, 544- 
545 

Ordinances of July (1830), 92- 
93; withdrawn, 96 

Oregon, settlement of the Oregon 
dispute, 1846, 529 



812 



INDEX 



"Organic Laws," The (Russia), 
713 

Orleans, Duchess of, 143 

Orleans, Duke of, 91. See also 
Louis Philippe 

Orsini, conspiracy of, 222 

Oscar I, King of Norway and 
Sweden, 18U-1859, 597 

Oscar II, King of Norway and 
Sweden, 1872-1905; King of 
Sweden alone, 1905-1907; fric- 
tion between Norway and Swe- 
den, 597-598; question of the 
consular service (1892), 599; 
dissolution of the union of 
Sweden and Norway and Treaty 
of Carlstad, 599-600; death of 
(1907), 600 

Osman Pasha, fortifies Plevna, 
623; surrenders, 624 

Ottawa, federal parliament at, 
528 

Otto I, King of Greece, 1833- 
1862, 611; reign of, 633; be- 
comes a constitutional monarch, 
ISU, 634; overthrow of, 1862, 
634 

Ottoman Empire, The Disruption 
of, and the Rise of the Balkan 
States, 601-644. See Turkey 

Oudh, Annexation of, to the Brit- 
ish Empire, 520 

Owen, Robert, and the child labor 
agitation, 442 

Oxford University, Religious tests 
in, 415; Gladstone at, 465-466; 
religious tests in, abolished, 483, 
485 

Pact of 1815 (Switzerland), 584 
Palacky, historian, 154 
Palmerston, Lord, attitude toward 
Italian unity, 229; estimate of 
Cavour, 239; in the Grey Minis- 
try, 430; attitude toward the 
extension of the suffrage, 461; 
death of, 461; on the secret bal- 
lot, 483; attitude toward the 
Crimean War, 613 
Papal Guarantees, Law of, 378 
Papal Infallibility, Dogma of, 307 
Papal States, restoration of, by 
Congress of Vienna, 9-10, 52; 
government of, 55; insurrection 
in (1831), 110; Austrian inter- 
vention, 111; French seize An- 
cona. 111; absolutism restored, 
111; results of the insurrections, 



Papal States, continued 

111-112; cooperate in insurrec- 
tion against Austria (18^8- 
1849), 173; recall troops, 175; 
agreement at Plombieres con- 
cerning, 223. See Rome 

Paris, First Treaty of (181j), 
3, 5; the "Hundred Days" in, 
13; Second Treaty of (1815), 
13; oppositon of the liberal edi- 
tors of (1830), 94; July Revolu- 
tion (1830) in, 95, 117; Louis 
Philippe in, 114, 125; Republican 
insurrection in (1832), 123; 
revolution of February (18^8), 
141-142; proclamation of the Sec- 
ond Republic in, 144; political 
life in (18^8), 190; and the Na- 
tional Workshops, 192-193; the 
June Days (1848), in, 194; de- 
clared under martial law, 202; 
Louis Napoleon's coup d'etat of 
December 2, 1851, in, 203-204; 
the " massacre of the boule- 
vards," 205; international exposi- 
tion in (1855), 211-212; im- 
provements in, 212; Congress of 
(1856), 212, 220; excitement in, 
over the news of the candidacy 
of Prince Leopold, 291; war 
party in (1870), 293; proclama- 
tion of the Third Republic 
(1870), 297; siege of, 298-299; 
capitulation of, 299; and the 
Commune, 330-336; and the As- 
sembly, 330; distress of the work- 
ing classes in, 331 ; revolutionary 
elements in, 331-332; action of 
the National Guard in, 332; war 
between the Commune and the 
Versailles Government, 333; gov- 
ernment of the Commune, 333; 
the Commune and National As- 
sembly clash, 334; second siege 
of, 334-335; Government's pun- 
ishment of, 335; seat of govern- 
ment transferred to (1880), 352 
and the Boulanger crisis, 356 
Exposition of 1889 in, 357 
Treaty of, 1898, Spain and the 
United States, 574; Treaty of 
(1856), 615-616; Conference of 
(1858), 618 

Paris, Count of, grandson of 
Louis Philippe, 143; Orleanist 
Pretender, 341-342 

Parish Councils Bill of 1894 (Eng- 
land), 509 



INDEX 



813 



Parliaments, Modern, Australia, 
Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives (1901), 534; Austria, 
House of Lords and House of 
Representatives (1867), 395; 
Hungarv, Table of Magnates 
and Table of Deputies (IS-iS), 
S95; Austria-Hungary, The Dele- 
gations (1861), 394; Belgium, 
Two Chambers (1831), 581; Bul- 
garia, Sobranje (1879), 628; 
Canada, Dominion of. Senate and 
House of Commons (1867), 529; 
Crete, Assembly (1907), 635 
note; Denmark, Landsthing and 
Folkething (1866), 594; Fin- 
land, Single Chamber (200), 
Grand Committee (60), 1906, 
718; France, Senate and Cham- 
ber of Deputies (1875) , 345- 
S46; Germany, Bundesrath and 
Reichstag (1871), 304; Great 
Britain, House of Lords and 
House of Commons, 410, 437- 
438, 493-496 (1885); Greece, 
Boul6 (186-i), 634; Holland, 
States General, Upper and 
Lower Houses (18^8), 580; Ice- 
land (1874), 595; Italy, Senate 
and Chamber of Deputies 
(1861), 377-378; Japan, House 
of Peers and House of Repre- 
sentatives (18S9), 694; New 
Zealand, 534; Norway, Storthing 
(1814), 595; Portugal, 577-578; 
Prussia, House of Peers and 
House of Representatives 
(1850), 186; Roumania, Two 
Chambers (1881), 632; Russia, 
Council of the Empire and 
Duma (1906), 713; Spain, Sen- 
ate and Congress of Deputies 
(1876), 573; Sweden, Upper and 
Lower Houses (1866), 597, 600; 
Switzerland, Council of States 
and National Council (1848), 
586; Turkey, Senate and Cham- 
ber of Deputies (1908), 642; 
Union of South Africa, Senate 
and House of Assembly (1909), 
544-545 

Parma, Duchy of, disposition of, 
by Congress of Vienna, 9, 52- 
53; Marie Louise, Duchess of, 
forced to flee from, 110, 226; 
annexed to Piedmont (1860), 230 

Pamell, Charles Stuart, leader of 
the Home Rulers, 498 



Patrimony of St. Peter, 238 

Peace Conferences at the Hague, 
First (1899), 730-733, estab- 
lishes Permanent Court of Arbi- 
tration, 733; Second (1907), 
734-735; significance of, 735 

Pedro I of Brazil, becomes Pedro 
IV of Portugal, 576; abdicates 
in favor of his daughter, Maria 
da Gloria, 576-577 

Pedro V, King of Portugal, 185S- 
1861, 577 

Peel, Sir Robert, reforms Penal 
Code (1823), 424; and the 
Catholic Emancipation Act, 427- 
428; on the Reform Bill, 434- 
435; on Queen Victoria, 445; 
leader of the Conservatives, be- 
comes Prime Minister (1S41- 
1846), 451-452; reforms the 
tariff (1842), 452; repeal of the 
Corn Laws (1846), 454; over- 
throw of, 454; and Gladstone, 
466 

Peking, 684; threatened (1858), 
686-687; legations in (1900), 
rescued by the Powers, 698; 
Empress-Dowager returns to, 
704 

Penal Code, reformed (1823) by 
Sir Robert Peel, 424 

Perry, Commodore, sent by United 
States to Japan, 690, 693; the 
Shogun makes a treaty with 
(1854), 691 

Pescadores Islands, China cedes, to 
Japan, 696 

Peschiera, 173 

Peter I, King of Servia, 1903—, 
633 

Peterloo, Massacre of, 1819, 421 

Philhellenic Societies, founded in 
France, Germany, Switzerland, 
England, and tlie United States, 
607 

Philippines, 565; Spain loses, 574 

Pi y Margall, 572 

Picquart, Colonel, and the Dreyfus 
Case, 359-363; promoted Briga- 
dier-General, 363; becomes Min- 
ister of War, 363 

Piedmont or Kingdom of Sar- 
dinia, acquires Genoa, 3, 5, 52; 
Victor Emmanuel I and his gov- 
ernment, 54-55; revolution in, 
and abdication of Victor Em- 
manuel I, 61-62; reforms of 
Charles Albert in, 167; sends an 



814 



INDEX 



Piedmont, contiri'ued 

army to aid insurrection in Lom- 
bardy, 173; Charles Albert de- 
feated at Custozza (1848), 176; 
abdication of Charles Albert, 
181-183; Constitutional Statute 
(1848), 185; accession of Victor 
Emmanuel II, 181, 215-216; a 
constitutional state, 216; takes 
the lead in the making of the 
Kingdom of Italy, 216; Cavour 
in, 216-239; economic develop- 
ment of, 218; Crimean policy 
of, 212, 219, 613; Cavour at the 
Congress of Paris (1856), de- 
nounces the policy of Austria in 
Italy, 220; army strengthened 
in, 221; founding of the Na- 
tional Society, 221; allied with 
France in vi'ar against Austria, 
225; campaign of 1859, 225; 
Peace of Villafranca, 225-226; 
Lombardy annexed to, 228, 389; 
Modena, Parma, Tuscany, and the 
Romagna annexed to, 230; army 
of, defeats the Papal troops at 
Castelfidardo, 236; Naples, Sic- 
ily, Umbria, and the Marches 
annexed to, 236; Kingdom of, 
gives way to the Kingdom of 
Italy, 237; constitutional govern- 
ment in, 377; constitution of, 
adopted with slight variations as 
the constitution of Italy (1861), 
377-378; ilhteracy in (1861), 381; 
signs Treaty of Paris, (1856), 
615-616 

Pitt, William, Earl of Chatham, 
432 

Pitt, William, the Younger, on 
representation in Parliament, 
415; and Catholic Emancipa- 
tion, 426 

Pius IX, Pope, 1846-1878, reforms 
of, 166; flees from Rome, 181; 
restored by the French, 182; his 
government, 215, 220; to be 
president of the projected Ital- 
ian Confederation, 226; issues 
major excommunication, 230; re- 
fuses to recognize the Kingdom 
of Italy, 237; loses temporal 
power by the Italian occupation 
of Rome, 301 ; and the Kultur- 
kampf, 306-309; attitude to- 
ward the Law of Papal Guar- 
antees, 378-379; death of, 309, 
380 



Pius X, Pope, 1903—, protests 
against visit of President Loubet 
of France to Victor Emmanuel 
III (1904), 368; condemns Law 
of 1905 in France, 369-370; atti- 
tude toward the Law of Papal 
Guarantees, 379 

Plebiscite, in France, December 20, 
1851, 205; November 21, 1852, 
205-206; May 8, 1870, 284; in 
Italy, March, 1860, 230, 231, 
236 

Plehve, Minister of the Interior 
(Russia), 1902-1904, repressive 
regime of, 707; assassination of, 
707 

Plevna, Siege of, 623-624, 625, 632 

Plombieres, Interview at, between 
Cavour and Napoleon III, 222- 
223, 260 

Plural Voting, Double Vote in 
France by Electoral Law 
(1820), 81, rescinded (1831), 
117; in England, 495, 517; in 
Belgium, 582 

Pobyedonostseff, influence of, in 
Russia, 670-671; on parliamen- 
tary institutions and the press, 
671 ; in the reign of Nicholas 
II, 676; removal of, 712 

Poland, granted a constitution, 38; 
influence of the July Revolution 
(1830) in, 100, 108; revolution 
in, 105, 106-110; restoration of 
the Kingdom of, in 1815, 105, 
647; Alexander I grants a con- 
stitution to, 107, 648; friction 
between the Poles and the Rus- 
sians, 107, 649-650; failure of 
the insurrection (1830-1831), 
109, 653; becomes a province of 
the Russian Empire, 109; influ- 
ence of events in Italy (1859- 
1860) upon, 246; Russia and 
(1815), 645; insurrection (1863) 
in, 662-664; Russification of, 
664-665; persecution of the Jews 
in, 672 

Polignac Ministry, 90-91 

Polish-Saxon question at the Con- 
gress of Vienna, 7-8 

Pomerania, acquired by Prussia, 8 

Pondicherry, French possession, 
1815, 371 

Port Arthur, seized by Japan, 
695; China cedes, to Japan, 
696; Japan relinquishes, 696; 
Russia secures a lease of 



INDEX 



815 



Port Arthur, continued 

(1898), 697, 699; Japan and the 
Russian fleet at, 701; siege of, 
701; Japan destroys the fleet at, 
702; surrenders, 702, 709; Rus- 
sia transfers to Japan her lease 
of, 703 

Porte. See Turkey 

Porto Rico, 565, 572, 574 

Portsmouth (England), local gov- 
ernment in, 1832, 443 

Portsmouth, N. H., Treaty of 
(1905), 702-703 

Portugal, 57; English intervention 
in, 423; stations of, in Africa, 
1815, 551 ; acquisitions in Africa, 
1884-1890, 554; and the Con- 
gress of Berlin, 1884-1885, 555; 
flight of the royal family to 
Brazil, 1807, 575; revolution of 
1820, 576; constitution of 1822 
accepted by King John VI, 576; 
loss of Brazil, 576; civil war 
between Queen Maria da Gloria 
and Dom Miguel, 577; death of 
Maria, 577; recent events in, 
577; assassination of Carlos I 
and the Crown Prince, 1908,577; 
accession of Manuel II, 578; 
colonial possessions of, 578; es- 
tablishes trade centers at the five 
treaty ports of China, 686 

Portugal, Crown Prince of, assas- 
sinated, 1908, 577 

Posen, retained by Prussia, 8; 
Archbishop of, asks Bismarck's 
aid in behalf of the Papacy, 306- 
307 

Postal Savings Banks, in England, 
459; in New Zealand, 535 

Postal Union, International, 591 

Pragmatic Sanction (Spain), 565- 
566 

Prague, Siege of (1848), 175; 
Peace of (1866), 263, 267; 
Francis Joseph I agrees to be 
crowned at, 398; University of, 
divided, 400; declared in a state 
of siege (1893), 401 

Preferential tariffs (England and 
her colonies), 548 

Presburg, Diet of, 155, removed to 
Budapest, 171 

Press, in Belgium, freedom of, 
granted by the Constitution 
(1831), 582; in England, Gag 
Laws (1819), 422; in France, 
freedom of, established by 



Press, continued 
Louis XVIII, 69; Law of 1819, 
78, rescinded, 81 ; attempt to 
destroy the freedom of the, 88; 
liberty of the, suspended by the 
July Ordinances (1830), 92; the 
July Monarchy and, 124-125; 
September Law of 1835 con- 
cerning, 126-127; under the 
Second French Republic, 190, 
202; under the Second Empire, 
209-210; law of 1868 concerning, 
281; practically unlimited free- 
dom of, secured (1881), 352; 
and the Franco-German War, 
289, 291-292; in Germany, censor- 
ship of, after the Conference of 
Carlsbad, 42; and Socialism, 314; 
under Emperor William II. 325; 
in Japan, 694; in Prussia, under 
Frederick William IV, 150, 242; 
and the Franco-German War, 
289, 291-292; in Russia, censor- 
ship of, under Nicholas I, 651- 
652; Pobyedonostseff on, 671; 
freedom of, during the war with 
Japan, 708; in Spain, 1815, 47 

Pretoria, 545 

Pretoria Convention, 1881, 540; 
Morley on, 540 

Prim, General, leader of the re- 
volt in Spain, 1865, 569 

Prince Consort (Albert of Saxe- 
Coburg), 445 

Prince Edward Island, English 
possession, 519, 523; responsible 
government granted to, 1851, 
527; admitted into the Dominion 
of Canada, 1873, 529 

Prince Imperial, son of Napoleon 
III, 212; and the Bonapartists, 
341 

Prince Regent, later George IV, 
420 

Progress, Certain Features of 
Modern, 719-736 

Proportional representation, in 
Switzerland, 590 

Protected Princes of India, 522 

Protection, Policy of, Germany 
adopts (1879), 310-312; influ- 
ence of, on colonial policy, 318- 
319; England and, 450-455; in the 
British Colonies, 548; Alexander 
II of Russia adopts, 674 

Provisional Government (France), 
143; composition of, 188; achieve- 
ments of, 189-193 



816 



INDEX 



Prussia, demands of, at Congress 
of Vienna, 6-7; acquisitions of, 
at Congress of Vienna, 8; and 
the Holy Alliance, 14-16; signs 
Quadruple Alliance (1815), 17; 
position in the Diet, 30; na- 
tional disappointment after 1815, 
32-44; promise of a constitution, 
35; Metternich's influence in, 35; 
King Frederick William III be- 
comes reactionary, 38 ; Wartburg 
Festival, 39-40; Carlsbad Decrees, 
41-44; surrenders to the leader- 
ship of Austria, 44; at Congress 
of Troppau (1820), 59; at Con- 
gress of Verona (1822), 62; 
recognizes the Kingdom of Bel- 
gium, 105; and the revolution in 
Poland, 106-110; and the revo- 
lution in Germany (1830), 112; 
and Turkish affairs, 132; London 
Conference (1840), 132; 1830- 
ISJfS, 145-152; evolution of, 146- 
152; revision of the system of 
taxation, 147; the Zollverein, 148- 
149; death of Frederick William 
III, and accession of Frederick 
William IV, 149; the Letter 
Patent of February, 1847, prom- 
ises a national assembly, 151; 
conflict between Frederick Wil- 
liam IV and the United Land- 
tag, 152; events in Berlin, 
March, 1848, 173; Frederick 
William IV promises a repre- 
sentative constituent assembly, 
174; leadership in Germany of- 
fered to the King of, 184-185; 
rejects the work of the Frank- 
fort Parliament, 185; the 
"humiliation of Olmutz," 185; 
constitution of 1850, 185-186, 
306 ; contemplates intervention 
in Austro-Sardinian War, 226- 
227; reaction in, 1850-1858, 240; 
a constitutional but not a parlia- 
mentary state, 241; control of 
the press, 242; the privileged 
class, 243; economic transforma- 
tion, 243-244; industrial develop- 
ment, 244-245; rise of a wealthy 
middle class, 245; intellectual 
foundations for the hegemony 
of, 245-246; the army in, 248; 
army reform (1860) under Wil- 
liam I and von Roon, 249; op- 
position of the Chamber to 
army reform, 249; Bismarck 



Prussia, continued 
appointed president of the min- 
istry, 249-250; struggle between 
the Upper and the Lower 
Houses over the budget, 255; 
Bismarck's policy of " blood 
and iron" for, 255; the three 
wars of, 256; Bismarck's plans 
regarding Schleswig-Holstein, 
257; declares war on Denmark, 
258 ; secures Schleswig-Holstein 
and Lauenburg jointly with 
Austria by the Treaty of 
Vienna, 259, 593; Convention of 
Gastein, 259-260; buys Lauen- 
burg, 260; alliance with Italy, 
261; troops of, enter Holstein, 
263; withdraws from the Con- 
federation, 263; war with Aus- 
tria and her allies (1866), 263; 
General von Moltke conquers 
North Germany, 264; defeats 
Austria at Koniggratz, 265; 
terms of peace with Austria, 
267; annexations of, 267; and 
the North German Confedera- 
tion, 268-270; alliance with 
South German states, 270; posi- 
tion of, in 1866, 287-288; France 
declares war against (1870), 
293; South German states join, 
293-294; invasion of France, 296; 
victories over the French at 
Worth, Forbach, Spicheren, 
Borny, Mars-la-Tours, and Gra- 
velotte, 296; surrender of the 
Emperor Napoleon III at 
Sedan, 297; siege of Paris, 298- 
299; capitulation of Metz, 298; 
capitulation of Paris and armis- 
tice, 299; Treaties of Versailles 
and Frankfort with France, 300; 
unification of Germany com- 
pleted, William I becomes Ger- 
man Emperor, 301; position of, 
in the German Empire, 303-304; 
Protestantism in, 306; Kultur- 
kampf, 306-310; the Falk Lav/s, 
308; conflict of Church and 
State, 308-309; Falk Laws sus- 
pended (1879), rescinded 
(1886), religious orders, except 
Jesuits, permitted to return 
(1887), 309; death of William 
I, 1888, 322; accession and death 
of Frederick III, 322; accession 
of William II, 322; demand for 
electoral reform in, 326; demand 



INDEX 



817 



Prussia, continued 

for parliamentary reform, 326; 
military system of, adopted by 
other countries, 481; signs 
Treaty of Paris (1856), 615- 
616; establishes trade centers at 
the five treaty ports of China, 
686 

Puebla, defeat of the French 
troops at, 278, 280 

Puffing Billy, The, 724 

Punjab, annexation of, by Eng- 
land, 520 

Pushkin, 652 

Quadrilateral, The, 173, 226 
Quadruple Alliance (1815), signed 

by the Powers, 16-17, 59 
Quebec, 523, 527, 528. See Canada 
Queen's University, 484, 516 
Queensland, responsible govern- 
ment granted to, 1859, 527; in 
the Australian Commonwealth, 
532 

Radetzky, Austrian commander in 
Italy, 173, 175 

Railroads, in the Australian Com- 
monwealth, 533 ; in Belgium, 582; 
in Bulgaria, 631; in Canada (Ca- 
nadian Pacific), 530; in China, 
704; in France, extension of, un- 
der the Second Empire, 211; in 
Germany, 245, 305; in Greece, 
635; in Hungary, government 
ownership of, 403; in Italy, 385; 
in Japan, 693; in New Zealand, 
government ownership of, 535; 
in Roumania, 632; in Russia, 
Trans-Siberian, 675, 696, 697, 
699, 701; Trans-Caspian, 682; 
invention of, 724-725; Hadley, 
A. T., on the importance of, 
in war. 725-726 

Rambouillet, 94 

Rand, gold discovered in the, 541 

Ravenna, 233 

Reaction, in Austria and Germany, 
23-44; and Revolution in Spain 
and Italy, 45-65 

"Recent Events in Romagna " 
(1846), by D'Azeglio, 165 

Reconstruction of Europe, 1-23 

Red Cross Society, 591; Russian 
officials and, 709 

Red Sea, Italy seizes positions on 
(1885), 382; route to India, 488 



Redistribution Act (England), 
1885, 493-494 

Referendum, adopted in New 
Zealand, 536; in Switzerland, 
588-590 

Reform Bills (England), 1832, 
436-438, 483, 492, 511; 1867, 463, 
492; 1884, 492-493; 1885, Redis- 
tribution Act, 493-494 

Reform, The, 143 

Reichenau, Louis Philippe in, 114 

Reichsrath or Parliament of Aus- 
tria, 395 

Reichstadt, Duke of, son of Na- 
poleon Bonaparte, 111, 127, also 
known as King of Rome and as 
Napoleon II 

Reichstag, 269, 303-304; 1877, 
Center the largest party in, 
309; Socialist party in (1890), 
314-315; Socialist party loses in 
(1907), 324-325 

Reid, Stuart J., Lord Durham's 
biographer, 526 and note 

Reign of Louis Philippe, 114- 
144 

Rennes, Court of Cassation orders 
a retrial of Dreyfus at, 362; 
verdict of court-martial of, 
quashed, 363 

Restoration, France during the, 66- 
99 

Reunion (formerly Bourbon), 
Island of, French possession, 
1815, 371 

Revolutions of 1820-1821, in Spain, 
49-50, 62-63; in Naples, 57; in 
Piedmont, 61-62; reasons for the 
failure of the movements of 
1820, 62 

Revolutions of 1830, in France, 
95-96; influence of, 100, 429; 
in Belgium, 103-104; in Poland, 
108-109; in Italy, 110-112; in 
Germany, 112 

Revolutions of 18^8, in France, 
141-144, 187; influence of, 145; 
in Hungary, 169-171; in Bo- 
hemia, 171-172; in Lombardy- 
Venetia, 172-173; in Germany, 
173-174; the March revolutions 
everywhere triumphant, 174; 
results of, 185-186 

Rhodes, Cecil, and the Jameson 
Raid, 542 

Rhodesia, 542, 545 

Richardson, murder of, in Japan 
(1862), 691 



INDEX 



Richelieu, Duke of. Minister of 
Louis XVIII, 75; reorganizes 
the army, 76; and the electoral 
system, 77; and the press, 78 

Riego, proclaims Constitution of 
1812, 49 

Rio de Oro, 574 

Rio Muni, 574 

Risorgimento, II, founded by 
Cavour, 217 

Risorgimento, The, 166; and see 
215-239 

Rivet Law (France), 337 

Roberts, Lord, in the South Af- 
rican War, 543-544 

Rocket, The, 725 

Rodjestvensky, Admiral, Russian 
fleet under, destroyed by Ad- 
miral Togo, May (1905), 702 

Romagna, Revolutionary move- 
ments in (1831), 110; "Recent 
Events in Romagna," by D'Aze- 
glio, 165; agreement at Plom- 
bieres concerning, 223; desires 
annexation to Piedmont, 226; an- 
nexed to Piedmont (1860), 230 

Roman Catholic Church. See 
Catholic Church (Roman) 

Rome, Napoleon on, as the capital 
of Italy, 50; and the revolu- 
tionary movements of 18S1, 110, 
111; declared a republic, 181; 
siege and capture of, by the 
French, 182; 223; not included in 
the new Italian Kingdom (1861), 
237; the question of, in the new 
Italian Kingdom, 238; and the 
Catholic Church, 238; seized by 
Italian troops and becomes the 
capital of the Kingdom of Italy 
(1870), 301; President Loubet of 
France visits Victor Emmanuel 
III in, 368; and the question of 
the Papacy, 378-380; riots in 
(1889), 383 

Rome, King of (son of Napoleon 
I), 2, 127, 212. See Duke of 
Reichstadt 

Romilly, statement in House of 
Commons concerning the Vene- 
tians, 10; and the Penal Code, 
424 

Roon, Albrecht von. Minister of 
War under William I, 249; at 
Koniggratz, 265 

Roosevelt, Theodore, and the 
Treaty of Portsmouth (1905), 
702; and the Second Peace Con- 



Roosevelt, Theodore, continued 
ference at the Hague (1907), 
734 

Root, Elihu, on the significance of 
the Peace Conferences at the 
Hague, 735 

Rosebery, Lord, Ministry of, 510- 
511; and Lord Salisbury, 510 

Rossi, murder of, 181 

Rotten boroughs (England, 1815), 
413-414 

Roumania, 404; union of Mol- 
davia and Wallachia into, 618; 
Alexander John I or Couza, 
Prince of, 618-619; reign of 
Charles I, 619-620; proclaims its 
independence. May 21, 1877, 623; 
complete independence recog- 
nized by Treaty of San Stefano, 
1878, 624; declared independent 
by Congress of Berlin, 1878, 
625-626; forced to cede Bes- 
sarabia to Russia and to receive 
the Dobrudscha, 625-626; since 
iS78, 632; proclaimed a king- 
dom, 1881, 632; aspirations of, 
635 

Roumelia, Eastern, made a part of 
Bulgaria by the Treaty of San 
Stefano, 1878, 624; disposition 
of, by the Congress of Berlin, 
i878, 625; union of, with Bul- 
garia, 1885, 628 

Roxburgh, 412 

Royal Geographical Society sends 
Cameron to rescue Livingstone, 
553 

Royal Statute (1834), Spain, 567 

Rudini, Marquis di. Prime Minis- 
ter (1896), policy of pacifica- 
tion, 383 

Rugby, 477 

Rumania. See Roumania 

Rumelia. See Roumelia 

Russell, Lord John, created Earl 
Russell, 1861, in the Grey Min- 
istry, 430; introduces First Re- 
form Bill in House of Commons, 
1831, 430; speech, 431; intro- 
duces Second Reform Bill, 1831, 
435; introduces Third Reform 
Bill, 436; on the question of 
further reform, 446; Prime Min- 
ister and the Reform Bill of 
1866, 462 

Russia, Demands of, at the Con- 
gress of Vienna, 6; acquisitions 
of, 8; and the Second Treaty 



INDEX 



819 



Russia, continued 

of Paris (1815), 13; and the 
Holy Alliance, 14-16; signs 
Quadruple Alliance (1815), 17; 
and the Congress of Troppau, 
59; and the Congress of Verona, 
62; prevented from acting in 
the Belgian affairs, 105; recog- 
nizes the Kingdom of Belgium, 
105; and the revolution in Po- 
land, 106-110; offers aid to Tur- 
key against Mehemet Ali, 132; 
Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi 
(1833) with Turkey, 132; and the 
London Conference (18-iO), 132; 
aids Austria against Hungary, 
180; and the London Confer- 
ence (1864), 258; attitude of 
Bismarck toward (1878), 320; 
alliance with France (Dual) 
1891, 357; growth of, 546; at 
the Conference of the Powers 
(1876), 554; at the Congress of 
Berlin (1884-1885), 555; and 
Finland, 595; and the Ottoman 
Empire, 601 ; and the Greek 
War of Independence, 606-609; 
and the Treaty of London 
(1827), 609; battle of Navarino 
(1827), 610; war with Turkey 
(1828), 610-611; Treaty of 
Adrianople (1829), 611; guaran- 
tees the independence of Greece, 
611; and the Danubian Prin- 
cipalities, 611; ambitions of 
Nicholas I, 611-612; and the 
"holy places" in Palestine, 612; 
sends troops into Moldavia and 
Wallachia (1853), 612; war 
with Turkey, 612; coalition 
against, 613; siege and fall of 
Sebastopol, 614-615, 654; Treaty 
of Paris, 1856, 615-616; disre- 
gards neutrality of the Black 
Sea, recovers part of Bessarabia, 
616; declares war against Tur- 
key, 1877, 623; allies of, 623; 
siege of Plevna, 623-624; Treaty 
of San Stefano, 1878, 320, 624; 
by Congress of Berlin, 1878, 
retains a part of Turkish Ar- 
menia and receives Bessarabia, 
320, 626; influence of, in Bul- 
garia, 628; conspiracy against 
Alexander of Bulgaria, 630; atti- 
tude of, toward the breaches of 
the Berlin Treaty of 1878, 629, 
640; secret treaty with Austria, 



Russia, continued 
640; reign of Alexander I, 
1801-1825, 645-650; Russia in 
1815, 645-646; Alexander I 
and Poland, 107, 647-648; Alex- 
ander's progressive domestic 
policy, 648; his liberal foreign 
policy, 649; Alexander becomes 
reactionary, 649; death of, 650; 
reign of Nicholas I, 1825-1855, 
650-655; system of repression by 
police and censorship, 651-652; 
literature under, 652-653; do- 
mestic policy, 653; foreign 
policy, 653-654; death of, 655; 
reign of Alexander II, 1855- 
1881, accession and liberal tend- 
encies of Alexander II, 655; 
prevailing system of land ten- 
ure, the mir and the serfs in, 
655-657; Edict of Emancipation, 
1861, 657; the land problem, 
657-660; establishment of the 
zemstvos, 660; reform of the 
judicial system, 661; Polish in- 
surrection of 1863, 662-663 
Polish nobility crushed, 664 
Russification of Poland, 665. 
Alexander becomes reactionary, 
665; rise of Nihilism, 666-668 
assassination of Alexander II, 
1881, 670; reign of Alexander 
III, 1881-1894, 670-676; char- 
acter and policy of, 670; influ- 
ence of Pobyedonostseff, 670- 
671 ; persecution of the Jews, 
672; policy of Russification, 
672; progressive features of the 
reign, 673; industrial revolution, 
673-674; Sergius de Witte ap- 
pointed Minister of Finance 
(1892), 674; policy of protec- 
tion adopted, 674; railway con- 
struction, 675; rise of labor prob- 
lems, 675; rise of a rich bour- 
geoisie, 675; system of privilege 
undermined, 676; death of Alex- 
ander III, 1894, 676; Nicholas 
II, 1894— y, 676-680; accession 
and policy of repression, 676; 
increasing disaffection under, 
677; condition of the peasantry, 
677; persecution of the "intel- 
lectuals," 678; and Finland, 678- 
680; abrogates the Finnish con- 
stitution, 679; in Asia, 681; seeks 
access to the sea, 682; acquisi- 
tions from China (1858-1860), 



820 



INDEX 



Russia, continued 

682, 687; conquest of Turkestan, 
682; intervenes with France and 
Germany in Japan, 696; gains 
entrance into Manchuria, 697; 
secures a lease of Port Arthur 
(1898), 697; helps to rescue the 
legations in Peking, 698; activ- 
ity of, in Manchuria, 699; diplo- 
matic negotiations with, con- 
cerning Manchuria, 700; Russo- 
Japanese War, 1904-1905, 701- 
702; siege of Port Arthur, 701; 
Mukden captured by the Jap- 
anese, 702; fleet of, destroyed 
by the Japanese, 702; signs 
Treaty of Portsmouth (1905), 
702-703; reaction of the Jap- 
anese war upon, 706; von 
Plehve's repressive policy in, 
707; assassination of von 
Plehve, 707; Nicholas II enters 
upon a more liberal policy, 708; 
demands of the liberals in, not 
granted by the Tsar, 708-709; 
disorder in, 709; Decree of Dec, 
190J,, 709-710; "Bloody Sun- 
day" (January 22, 1905), 710; 
disorder in, 710; Manifesto of 
August 19, 1905, 710-711; gen- 
eral strike (October, 1905) in, 
711; Manifesto of October 30, 
1905, 712; popular demand for 
a constitution refused, 712; Gov- 
ernment of, makes concessions 
to Finland, 713; the Tsar con- 
stitutes the Council of the Em- 
pire, 713 ; the " organic laws " 
713; Tsar opens the Duma, 
May 10, 1906, 713; Tsar dis- 
solves the Duma, July 22, 1906, 
715; the Second Duma, 715-716; 
Tsar alters the electoral system, 
716; the Third Duma, 716; the 
transformation of the mir 
(1909), 717; Tsar restores the 
liberties of Finland (1905), 717; 
and Finland (1909), 718 

Russo-Japanese War, 701-702 

Sadler, Thomas, and the child 

labor agitation, 442 
Sadowa or Koniggratz, battle of, 

between Prussia and Austria 

(1866), 265, 478; importance of, 

to France, 288 
Sagasta, leader of the Spanish 

Liberals, 1876, 573 



Saghalin, Island of, Russia cedes 
to Japan the southern half of, 
703 

St. Croix, 594 

St. John, 594 

St. Louis, on west coast of Af- 
rica, French possession, 373 

St. Lucia, retained by England in 
1815, 9, 519 

St. Petersburg, revolt in (1825), 
650; attempts to kill Tsar Alex-' 
ander II at, 669; population of, 
675; resolution of the Institute 
of Mining Engineers at, on the 
war with Japan, 706; representa- 
tives of the zemstvos meet at 
(1904), 708; students in, revolt, 
709; "Bloody Sunday" (Janu- 
ary 22, 1905) in, 710; electorate 
in, 711 

St. Pierre, French possession, 
1815, 371 

St. Simon, and socialism, 138 

St. Thomas, 594 

Salisbury, Lord, leader of the Con- 
servatives, 1881-1902, 497, First 
Ministry, 1885, 497; opposition 
of, to the Irish Home Rule 
and Land Bills, 503; Sec- 
ond Ministry, 1886-1892, 505- 
507; policy of coercion for Ire- 
land, 505; Land Purchase Act 
of 1891 passed, 505-506; County 
Councils Act of 1888, 506; Social 
Legislation, 506-507; increase of 
the navy, 1889, 507; and the 
Second Home Rule Bill, 509; 
and the House of Lords, 509- 
510; and Lord Rosebery, 510; 
Third Ministry, 1895-1902, 511- 
515; assumes the Foreign Office, 
511 

Salraeron, 572 

Salzburg, 8 

Samara, 677 

Samarkand, 682 

Samoan Islands, 319 

Samurai, The, 689, 693 

San Domingo, 569 

San Marino, 52 

San Stefano, Treaty of, 1878, 634; 
opposition to, 624-625; England 
demands revision of, 625 

Sand, Karl, assassin of Kotzebue, 
40 

Sand River Convention, 1852, 
538; Morley on, 540 

Santiago, battle of, 574 



INDEX 



821 



Saragossa, 49 

Sardinia, Island of, Victor Em- 
manuel I flees to, 5, 51, 54; King- 
dom of, see Piedmont 

Saskatchewan, admitted to the Do- 
minion of Canada, 1905, 529 

Savona, Mazzini imprisoned at, 
161 

Savoy, part of, added to France 
by Treaty of Paris (1814), 3; 
House of, 182, 215, 221, 378; 
agreement at Plombiferes con- 
cerning, 223; annexation of, to 
France (1860), 231; Amadeo of, 
570-571 

Saxe-Coburg, Albert of. Prince 
Consort, 445; Ferdinand of, 
elected Prince of Bulgaria, 630 

Saxe-Weimar, 37 

Salonika, 642; the deposed Sul- 
tan Abdul Hamid II, taken as 
a prisoner of state to, 643 

Saxony, King of, restored (1815), 
8; cessions of, to Prussia at Con- 
gress of Vienna, 8; position in 
the Diet, 30; government in 1815, 
36; revolutionary movements in 
(1830), 112; supports Austria in 
the war of 1866, 263; in the 
North German Confederation, 
268, 269 

Scandinavian States, The, 592-600 

Schaumburg-Lippe, 304 

Scheurer-Kestner, and the Drey- 
fus Case, 360 

Schleiermacher, 44 

Schleswig-Holstein, question of, 
256-259; Schleswig incorporated 
with Denmark, 257; Danish war 
concerning, 258; all rights to, 
renounced by Denmark in favor 
of Austria and Prusssia by the 
Treaty of Vienna (1864), 259; 
Convention of Gastein (1865), 
259-260; Austria brings question 
of, before the Diet, 263; incorpo- 
rated in the Kingdom of Prussia, 
267; Frederick VI and, 592; 
Frederick VII and, 593 

School boards, England, 479, 514 

Schopenhauer, 246 

Schwarzenberg, Austrian Minister, 
179 

Schwarzhoff, General von, address 
at the First Peace Conference 
at the Hague (1899), 731 

Science, in the nineteenth century, 
720-721 



Scotland, Representation of, in 
House of Commons, 1815, 410; 
condition in the counties of, in 
1815, 412; given increased repre- 
sentation, 437; Act of 18S3 cor- 
recting abuses in municipal 
government in, 444; Reform 
Bill, 1868, for, 464; Franchise 
Bill, 493; Gladstonian vote in, 
1886, 504; County Councils Act 
of 1889, 506; Old Age Pensions 
Law in, 516 

Sebastopol, Siege of, 614; fall of, 
615, 654 

Second Empire, The Transforma- 
tion of, 272-284 

Second French Republic and the 
Founding of the Second Empire, 
The, 187-214 

Seeley, Sir John Robert, in his 
" Expansion of Entjland " on 
the government of India, 5'2'2 

Senegal, French possession 1815, 
371; Valley, annexed to France 
under Napoleon III, 373, 374 

Separation of Church and State in 
France, 364-371 

September Laws (1835), 125-127 

Septennate, Establishment of the, 
343 

Seven Weeks' or Austro-German 
War (1866), 263-267 

Serfs, Emancipation of, in Russia 
(1861), 657 

Sergius, Grand Duke, assassinated, 
710 

Serrano, Marshal, 569; Regency 
of, 570; and the Spanish Re- 
public, 572 

Servia, Kingdom of, 404; revolt 
of the Servians, 604; becomes 
autonomous principality tribu- 
tary to the Sultan, 604, 609; 
Slavs of, aid Herzegovina, 1875, 
620; and Montenegro declare 
war against Turkey, 1876, 623- 
623; complete independence of, 
recognized by the Treaty of San 
Stefano, 1878, 624; opposition to 
the Treaty of San Stefano, 
1878, 624-625; declared inde- 
pendent by Congress of Ber- 
lin, ^878, 625-626; attacks 
Bulgaria, 1885, 629; Treaty 
of Bucharest, 1886, 629; since 
1878, 633; Kingdom proclaimed, 
1882, 633; aspirations of, 635; 
protests against Austria-Hun- 



822 



INDEX 



Servia, continued 

gary's annexation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, 639; (1909 J, 641- 
642 

Seville, 565 

Shanghai, opened to British trade 
by Treaty of Nanking (1842), 
685 

Shantung, Germany establishes a 
" sphere of influence " in (1898), 
697 

SheflSeld, unrepresented in Parlia- 
ment (1815), 414 

Shimonoseki, Treaty of (1895), 
695-696 

Shogun, The, 688-689; breaks 
policy of isolation, 690-691; over- 
throw of the Shogunate, 691 ; 
abolition of the Shogunate, 692 

Siberia, 109, 646, 651, 652, 653, 
656, 668, 669, 681, 682, 707, 713 

Sibir, 681 

Sicilies, The Kingdom of the Two. 
See Naples 

Sicily, 51, 62; conquest of, by 
Garibaldi, 234-235; illiteracy in, 
1861, 381; emigration from, 386 

Sickness Insurance Law (1883) in 
Germany, 316 

Silesia, 23 

Simon Ministry dismissed, 349 

Six Acts or Gag Laws, England 
(1819), 422 

Slavery, abolished in the French 
colonies, 190; abolition of, in 
British Empire, decreed by Law 
of 1833, 440; abolished in 
British South Africa, 1834, 537 

Slave-trade, denounced at the 
Congress of Vienna (1815), 12; 
abolished by England, 1807, 439 

Slavonia, 177, 396 

Slavs, 25, 154, 177; attitude toward 
Austria in the Austro-Prussian 
War of 1866, 266; favored by 
Taaffe Ministry, 400; 404; 405 

Slovenes, demands of, 397; in 
Carniola, Slavicize the province, 
400 

Smith, Adam, author of " Wealth 
of Nations/' 1776, 417 

Smith, Sidney, on the Irish Church, 
471 

Sobranje, elects Ferdinand of 
Saxe-Coburg, Prince of Bul- 
garia, 630 

Social Democratic Party (Ger- 
many), 325 



Social Legislation, in Germany, 315- 
316; in Austria, 400; in England, 
459, 506-507, 515-516; in New 
Zealand, 535-536; in Denmark, 
594 

Socialism, in France, under Louis 
Philippe, 138; Louis Blanc and, 
138, his theories, 189; under the 
Provisional Government, 188; 
National Workshops, 191-194; 
growth of, under Napoleon III, 
331-332; in Germany, 312-318, 
324-325; in Austria, 400-402; in 
England, 458; Bakounine and, 
667; in Russia, 667-668, 675, 707 

Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, 631 

Solferino, battle of, 225, 226, 725 

Solovief, attempt of, upon the life 
of Alexander II, 1879, 669 

Somaliland, Italian protectorate 
established over, 382 

Sonderbund (1847), 586 

Soudan, Egypt loses, 561; recov- 
ery of, 562; Turkey and, 643 

Soult, minister of Louis Philippe, 
131 

South Africa. See British South 
Africa 

South Africa, Union of, 1909, 544- 
545, 549 

South African Republic. See 
Transvaal 

South America, 48; Monroe Doc- 
trine and, 64-65; Garibaldi in, 
232; Guiana in, a French pos- 
session, 1815, 371; Italian emi- 
gration to, 386; revolts in, 565, 
574 

South Australia, responsible gov- 
ernment granted to, 527; in the 
Australian Commonwealth, 532 

Spa Fields, 420 

Spain, Reaction and Revolution in, 
45-50; Constitution of 1812, 45- 
46; restoration of Ferdinand 
VII, 46; condition of, in i8i5, 47- 
48; disintegration of the Spanish 
Empire, 48-49; Revolution of 
1820, 49-50; proclamation of 
Constitution of 1812, 50; and the 
Congress of Verona, 62; invasion 
of the French, 63; siege of 
Cadiz, 63; reaction in, 63; Eng- 
land prohibits the conquest of 
Spanish-American colonies by 
France and allies, 64-65; joint 
intervention with England and 
France in Mexico, 277, 569; revo- 



INDEX 



823 



Spain, continued 
lution of 1S6S and candidacy of 
Leopold of Hohenzollern, 290- 
291; stations of, in Africa, 
1815, 551; and Portugal, 564- 
578; Spain since 1S23, 564-575; 
revenge of King Ferdinand VII 
in, after 1823, 564; loses the 
American colonies, 565; and the 
Pragmatic Sanction, 565-566; 
death of Ferdinand VII and ac- 
cession of Isabella, 566; the Carl- 
ist war, 566-567; Christina as 
Regent grants the Royal Statute 
of 183 Jt, 567; disturbed political 
life in, 1833-1858, 568; Constitu- 
tion of 1837, 568; Queen Regent 
driven into exile, Isabella II de- 
clared of age, 568; overthrow 
of Isabella II, and establishment 
of a provisional government, 
569; regency of Marshal Serrano, 
570; Amadeo of Savoy chosen 
king, 570; abdication of Amadeo, 
571; establishment of the Re- 
public, 1873-1874, 571-572; 
causes of its fall, 572; Alfonso 
XII recognized as king, 187.^, 
572; the Constitution of 1876, 
573; death of Alfonso XII and 
regency of Queen Maria Chris- 
tina, 574; Cuban War, 1868-1878, 
1895, 574; Spanish-American 
War, 1898, 574; Treaty of Paris, 
1898, Spain renounces Cuba, 
Porto Rico, and the Philippines, 
574; possessions in 1898, 574; 
Alfonso XIII assumes power in 
(1902), 576; Alexander I (Rus- 
sia) and, 649 

Spanish-American Colonies, Eng- 
land and, 64-65; Spain loses, 
565, 574 

Spanish-American War (1898), 574 

Speke, English explorer, finds one 
source of the Nile, 552 

Spicheren, Germans defeat French 
at, 296 

Staal, M. de, President of the 
First Peace Conference at the 
Hague, Address of, 730-731 

Stambuloff, Dictatorship of, 630- 
631; murder of, 631 

Standard, The, 419 

Stanley, Henry M., explorations of 
the Congo River system, 553; 
as organizer in the Congo, 1879- 
1884, 555 



Stanley, later Lord Derby, in the 
Grey Ministry, 430; on the Re- 
form Bill, 434 

State Insurance, in Germany, 315- 
316; in Austria, 400; in England, 
459, 515-516; in New Zealand, 
535-536; in Denmark, 594 

State Socialism in Germany, 315- 
316. See also State Insurance 
and Social Legislation 

Staten Island, Garibaldi at, 233 

States of the Church. See Papal 
States 

Steam, engine, 407; age of, 721; 
navigation, 723-724; locomotive, 
724-725 

Stein, Baron vom, 43, 139 

Stephen, Sir Leslie, on prefer- 
ment in the Established Church, 
416 

Stephens, James, leader of the 
Fenian movement in Ireland, 
470 

Stephenson, George, and steam 
locomotives, 725 

Stepniak, on Nihilism, 666 

Stockholm, capital of Sweden, 596 

Stolypin, Prime Minister, 715, 716; 
and the transformation of the 
mir, 717 

Storthing (Norway) established 
(1814), 595, 596, 598 

Strassburg, Louis Philippe at, 128, 
199; surrender of (1870), 299 

Strike, The resort to the general, 
in Russia, 711-712 

Suez Canal, purchase of shares of, 
by England, 488; Ismail and, 
558 

Sumatra, 581 

Surinam, 581 

Sviatopolk Mirski, Prince, Russian 
Minister of Home Aifairs, 708, 
710 

Sweden, loses Pomerania by the 
Congress of Vienna, 8; acquires 
Norway by Treaty of Kiel 
(1814), 10, 592, 595; Russia ac- 
quires Finland from, 595, 645; 
war with Norway, 595-596; Union 
with Norway, 596; Constitution 
of 1866, 597; friction with Nor- 
way, 597-598; dissolution of the 
Union with Norway and Treaty 
of Carlstad (1905), 599; death 
of Oscar II, and accession of 
Gustavus V (1907), 600; Fran- 
chise Reform Bill of 1909, 600 . 



824 



INDEX 



Switzerland, territorial acquisitions 
of, by Congress of Vienna, 10; 
influence of the July Revolution 
(1830) in, 100; attitude of, to- 
ward the Spanish Republic, 572; 
condition of (1815), 584; Pact of 
1815, 12, 584; importance of the 
cantons in, 584-585; "era of 
regeneration," 1830-1 8 J,7,5S5; the 
Sonderbund, 586 ; Constitution of 
1848, 586-587; the chief signifi- 
cance of, 587; important con- 
tributions to democratic govern- 
ment, 588-590; the Landesge- 
meinde cantons, 588; the refer- 
endum, 588-589; the initiative, 
589; spread of the referendum 
and the initiative, 590; propor- 
tional representation, 590; popu- 
lation of, 590; neutrality of, 591 

Sybel, von, estimate of the German 
Act of Confederation, 32; on 
German unity, 34; 246 

Sydney, 531 

Syria, Mehemet Ali, in, 131, 558; 
part of the Ottoman Empire, 
1815, 601 

Sz6chenyi, Count Stephen, reforms 
of, in Hungary, 156 

TaafFe Ministry, 1879-1893, 400; 
fall of, 401 

Talienwan, 697 

Talleyrand, at Congress of Vienna, 
4; forms secret alliance between 
England, Austria, and France 
(January, 1815), 7 

Tanganyika, Lake, 552 

Tashkend, 682 

Tasmania, responsible government 
granted to, 527 ; in the Australian 
Commonwealth, 532 

Telegraph, 726 

Telegraph Union, International, 
591 

Tel-el-Kebir, Wolseley defeats 
Arabi at, 559 

Telephone, invented by Alexander 
Graham Bell (1876), 726 

Temple, Cowper-Temple amend- 
ment to Forster Education Act 
of 1870, 480 

Terra AustraliSj 530 

Terror, The White, 73-74 

Terrorism (Russia), 668, 671 

Test Act, Repeal of (1828), 425 

Tests (religious), in English Uni- 
versities abolished (1871), 483 



Tewfik, Khedive of Egypt, 1879- 
1892, revolt of Arabi Pasha, 
559 

Thessaly, the Powers recommend 
the cession of, to Greece (1878), 
626; Sultan cedes, to Greece 
(1881), 634; Greece loses parts 
of (1897), 635 

Thiers, protests against the edicts 
of Charles X, 94; Manifesto in 
favor of Louis Philippe, 96; 
rivalry of Guizot and, 130; Min- 
istry of, 131-132; on railroads, 
211; opposes war against Prus- 
sia, 293; elected "Chief of 
the Executive Power " by the 
National Assembly at Bordeaux, 
arranges terms of peace with 
Bismarck at Versailles, 300; 
government forces withdrawn 
from Paris by, 333; attitude 
toward the Commune, 334; gov- 
ernment of, 336-342; and the 
Rivet Law, 337; policy of, 337- 
338; and the liberation of the 
territory, 338; reform in local 
government, 339; army reform, 
339; and the Republic, 340-341; 
outvoted in the Assembly and 
resigns (1873), 341-342 

Third Section, part of the Rus- 
sian police system, 651, 669, 671- 
672 

Three F's, The, 491 

Thuringian Duchies, join Zoll- 
vereln, 148. 

Tientsin, Treaties of, 1858, 686, 
confirmed, 1860, 687 

Tithe War, Ireland, 472 

Tobago, retained by England in 
1815, 9, 519 

Tocqueville, de, on the French 
Revolution of 18^8, 187 

Todleben, at Sebastopol, 614; at 
siege of Plevna, 623 

Togo, Admiral, destroys the Rus- 
sian fleet (1905), 702 

Togoland, German colony in Af- 
rica, 319 

Tokio, capital of Japan, 692, 693; 
University established at, 693 

Tonkin, France sends expedition to, 
353; failure of the war in, 355; 
annexed (1885), 374 

Toulouse, speech of Waldeck- 
Rousseau at, on the question of 
Church and State (1900), 364r 
366 



INDEX 



825 



Tours, branch seat of the French 
government during the siege of 
Paris, 298 

Trades Unions, in England, growth 
of, 457 

Trans-Caspian railroad, 682 

Transformation of the Second Em- 
pire, The, 272-284 

Transleithania, 395. See Hungary 

Trans-Siberian railroad, 675, 696, 
699, 701; Russia extends, to 
Vladivostok, 697 

Transvaal, The, founding of, 538; 
independence of, acknowledged 
by Great Britain, 1852, 538; an- 
nexed to the British Empire, 
1877,538; Majuba Hill, 539; and 
the Pretoria Convention, 1881, 
540; and the London Convention, 
1884, 540; discovery of gold, 
1884, 541; Jameson Raid, 1895, 
541-542; Sir Alfred Milner's 
Reports on, 1899, 542; and 
the South African War, 543- 
544; annexed to the British 
Empire, 1902, 544. See Trans- 
vaal Colony 

Transvaal Colony, responsible gov- 
ernment granted to, 1906, 528, 
544; position of, in the Union of 
South Africa (1909), 544-545. 

Transylvania, a part of Hungary, 
24; allowed a certain measure 
of autonomy, 155; severed from 
Hungary, 388; position of, in the 
Empire (1861), 390, 392, 396; 
demands of the Roumanians in, 
403 

Treaties, Kiel (1814), Denmark 
and Sweden, 592; (First) Paris 
(1814), France and the Allies, 3, 
5; (Secret) Treaty of Defensive 
Triple Alliance concluded at the 
Congress of Vienna (1815), 
France, England, and Austria 
against Russia and Prussia, 7; 
(Second) Paris (1815), Louis 
XVIII and the Allies, 13; Holy 
Alliance (1815), Russia and the 
Powers, 14; Quadruple Alliance 
(1815), Russia, Prussia, Austria, 
and England, 16-17; London 
(1827), England, Russia, and 
France on the question of Greece, 
609; Adrianople (1829), Russia 
and Turkey, 611; London (1830- 
1831), recognizes the Kingdom 
of Belgium, 105; Unkiar 



Treaties, continued 

Skelessi (1833), Russia and 
Turkey, 132; London (1840), 
England, Russia, Austria, and 
Prussia on the Eastern Ques- 
tion, 132; Nanking (1842), Eng- 
land and China, 685; (1844) 
United States and China (Com- 
mercial), 686; London Protocol 
(1852), concerning Schleswig- 
Holstein, 257-258; (1854) United 
States and Japan (Commercial), 
691; Paris (1856), England, 
France, Austria, Russia, Prussia, 
Sardinia, and Turkey, 615-616; 
Tientsin (1858), England and 
China, France and China, 686, 
confirmed (1860), 687; Zurich 
(1859) (Preliminaries at Villa- 
franca, 225-226), Austria, France, 
and Sardinia, 228; Turin (1860), 
France and Sardinia, 231; 1860, 
Treaty of Commerce, France 
and England, 274; London 
(1861), England, Spain, and 
France agree to joint interven- 
tion in Mexico, 277; Vienna 
(1864), Denmark, Austria, and 
Prussia, 259, 593; Gastein 
(1865), Prussia and Austria, 
259-260; Alliance (1866), Prus- 
sia and Italy, 261 ; Prague 
(1866), Prussia and Austria 
(Preliminary at Nikolsburg), 
263, 266-268; Versailles and 
Frankfort (1871), Germany and 
France, 300-301, 338; Berlin 
Memorandum (1876), 620; San 
Stefano (1878), Russia and 
Turkey, 624; Berlin (1878), 
625-626; Austro-German (1879), 
321; Triple Alliance, Germany, 
Austria, and Italy (1882), 319- 
321, 382; Berlin (1884-1885), 
concerning Congo Free State, 
555-556; Bucharest (1886), Bul- 
garia and Servia, 629; Dual Al- 
liance (1891), France and Rus- 
sia, 357; Shimonoseki (1895), 
China and Japan, 695-696; Paris 
(1898), Spain and the United 
States, 574; Anglo-Japanese 
(1902), 700; Carlstad (1905), 
Sweden and Norway, 599-600; 
Portsmouth (1905), Russia and 
Japan, 702-703 

Treaty ports (China), 685 

Treitschke, 149, 246 



826 



INDEX 



Trevelyan, Sir George, on the 
policy of coercion in Ireland, 
505 

Tribune (The), prosecution of, un- 
der the July Monarchy, 124 

Trinidad, retained by England in 
1815, 9, 519 

Trinity College (Dublin), 484 

Triple Alliance, 1882, 319-322, 357, 
382, 640 

Tripoli, one of the Barbary States, 
372; in 1815, 551 

Tripolitza, taken by the Greeks, 
606 

Trocadero, 63 

Trochu, General, Head of the Gov- 
ernment of National Defense, 
297 

Troppau, Congress of (1820), 59- 
60 

Tsushima, Straits of, naval battle 
of the, 1905, 702 

Tunis, seized by France, 1881, 321 ; 
France establishes a protectorate 
over (1881), 353, 374, 554; Pic- 
quart sent to, 359; one of the 
Barbary States, 372; in 1815, 551, 
602 

TurgenieflF, 652; definition of a 
Nihilist, 666 

Turin, 54, 61 ; parliament meets at, 
230, 237; Treaty of (1860), 231; 
capital of Italy to 1865, 378; 
riots in (1889), 383 

Turkestan, conquest of, by Russia 
(1845-1885), 682 

Turkey, war with Mehemet Ali, 
131; interference of Russia in, 
and Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi 
(1833), 132; England comes to 
the aid of, 132; London Con- 
ference (1840), 132; protects 
Kossuth and other Hungarian 
leaders, 180; war in the Crimea, 
219, 654 ; loss of Algeria, 372-373 ; 
Austria-Hungary and, 405; ques- 
tion of the integrity of (1876), 
489; position of, in Africa, 1815, 
551; relation of Egypt to, 557; 
decay of the Ottoman Empire, 
601; the ruling class in, 602; the 
Eastern Question, 602; treatment 
of subject peoples, 603; revolt 
of the Servians, 604; Servia be- 
comes an autonomous principal- 
ity tributary to the Sultan, 604; 
and the Greek War of Independ- 
ence, 604-611 ; calls upon Mehemet 



Turkey, continued 

Ali, of Egypt, for aid, 607; for- 
eign intervention, 607-610; battle 
of Navarino, 1827, 610; war with 
Russia, 1827-1828, 610, 654; 
Treaty of Adrianople, 1829, 611; 
Greece becomes a kingdom, 611; 
and the " holy places " in Pales- 
tine, 612; war with Russia, 612- 
616; Treaty of Paris, 1856, 615; 
admitted to the European Con- 
cert, 616; from the Treaty of 
Paris to the Treaty of Berlin, 
617-627; union of the Danubian 
Principalities into Roumania, 
1862, 618; insurrection of Her- 
zegovina, 1875, 620; Berlin 
Memorandum, 1876, 620; acces- 
sion of Abdul Hamid II, 621; 
the Bulgarian atrocities, 1876, 
621-622; Servia and Montenegro 
declare war, 622-623; Russia de- 
clares war, 1877, 623; siege of 
Plevna, 623; Treaty of San 
Stefano, 1878, 624; Congress of 
Berlin, 1878, revises Treaty of 
San Stefano, 625-626; union of 
the two Bulgarias, 626; Greece 
declares war against (1897), 635; 
revolution in, 636-644; Revolu- 
tion of July, 1908, 636; restora- 
tion of the Constitution of 1876, 
637; aims of the Young Turks, 
637-638; Bulgaria declares its 
independence, October 5, 1908, 
631, 639; attitude of foreign 
Powers, 638-640; Austria-Hun- 
gary annexes Bosnia and Her- 
zegovina, 1908, 639; declares in 
favor of peace, 641; Austria- 
Hungary and Bulgaria negotiate 
with, (1908), 641 ; opening of the 
Turkish Parliament (1908), 642; 
counter-revolution of April, 
1909, 642; the Young Turks re- 
gain control and depose the 
Sultan Abdul Hamid II, 642- 
643; accession of Mohammed V, 
1909, 643. See The Disruption 
of the Ottoman Empire and the 
Rise of the Balkan States, 601- 
644 

Tuscany, t"ie dominance of Aus- 
tria in, 9, 52-53; reforms in, 167; 
cooperates in insurrection against 
Austria, 173; recalls troops, 175; 
declared a republic, 181 ; restora- 
tion of the Grand Duke of, 182; 



INDEX 



827 



Tuscany, continued 
reaction in, after 184S, 215; 
agreement at Plombieres con- 
cerning, 223; restoration of the 
Grand Duke of, 226 i annexed to 
Piedmont (1860), 230; govern- 
ment of, 377 

Tyrol, The, 8 

Uitlanders, and the Boers, 541 

Ulster System, " tenant right " of 
land tenure, 475 

Ultras, The (France, 1815), 72; 
Louis XVIII checks, 74-75; 
activity of, 78; triumph of, 82 

Umbria, 235; annexation of, to 
Piedmont, 236 

Union, Act of, 1800, 497 

Union of South Africa (1909), 544- 
545, 549 

United Landtag, of Prussia, 151; 
conflict between Frederick Wil- 
liam IV and, 152 

United States, cooperate with Eng- 
land to prevent the conquest of 
the Spanish-American colonies 
by the Holy Alliance, 64-65; the 
Monroe Doctrine in, 64-65; Ger- 
man emigration to, 241 ; and the 
Mexican Expedition, 277; inter- 
vention of, in Mexico, 279; Bis- 
marck on the policy of protection 
in, 311; Italian emigration to, 
386; effect on England of the 
Civil War in, 461 ; Irish emigra- 
tion to, 470; and the Alabama 
award, 486, 591; and the Oregon 
dispute (1846), 529; growth 
of, 547; at Congress of Berlin 
(1884-1885), 555; demand re- 
forms in the Congo, 557; recog- 
nize the Republic of Spain, 572; 
Spanish-American War (1898), 
574; Jewish emigration to, 672; 
send Caleb Gushing to make a 
commercial treaty with China 
(18-'t4), 686; send Commodore 
Perry to Japan (1853), 690; 
Treaty of, with Japan (185-i), 
691 ; help to rescue the legations 
in Peking, 698; diplomatic nego- 
tiations of, with Russia concern- 
ing Manchuria, 700; Russo- 
Japanese Treaty at Portsmouth, 
New Hampshire, 1905, 702-703 

Universities, ferment in German, 
39; control of German, under 
Metternich, 41-42; in Prague, 



Universities, continued 
400; representation of, in Great 
Britain, 412, note; religious tests 
of, in Great Britain abolished, 
483; in Ireland by the Birrell 
Act (1908), 516; State, founded 
in Belgium, 582; in Greece, 634; 
in Japan, 693 

Unkiar Skelessi, Treaty of (1833), 
132 

Valais, 585 

Valen^ay, 47 

Vatican, 379 

Vaud, 585 

Venetia, disposition of, by First 
Treaty of Paris (1814), 3; 
disposition of, by Peace of ViUa- 
franca, 226; not included in the 
new Kingdom of Italy (1861), 
237; ceded to Italy by Austria 
(1866), 267, 376 

Venice, 52; the leading city of 
Venetia, 172; declares itself a 
republic, 173; fall of (1849), 
182 

Verona, Congress of, 62-63; for- 
tress of, 173 

Versailles, armistice of (1871), 
299; peace of, 300-301; declared 
the capital (1811), 330; war be- 
tween Paris and the Government 
of, 333-336; capital transferred 
from (1880), 352 

Viborg Manifesto (1906), 715 

Victor Emmanuel I, King of Sar- 
dinia, government of, 54-55; ab- 
dicates, 61 

Victor Emmanuel II, suc- 
ceeds his father as King of 
Sardinia, 181; accession and char- 
acter, 216; and the interview at 
Plombieres, 222-223; attitude of, 
toward the Preliminaries of 
Villa franca, 227; accepts the 
sovereignty of Modena, Parma, 
Tuscany, and the Romagna, 230; 
advances with his army into the 
Kingdom of Naples, 236; and 
Garibaldi, 237; all Italy (except- 
ing Rome and Venetia) united 
under his sovereignty (1861), 
237; allied with Prussia in war 
against Austria (1866), 261; 
gains Venetia, 267; neutrality of, 
in Franco-German War, 294; 
takes possession of Rome, 301 ; 
programme of (1810), 377; and 



828 



INDEX 



Victor Emmanuel II, continv>ed 
the Papacy, 378-379; death of 
(ISIS), 380 

Victor Emmanuel III, King of 
Italy, 1900 — , succeeds his 
father, Humbert I, 384; visited 
by President Loubet, of France 
(190/f), 368; character of, 384; 
industrial expansion under, 385; 
increase of population under, 
386; and the problem of emigra- 
tion under, 386; and the mon- 
archy in Italy, 387 

Victoria (British colony), and the 
secret ballot, 484; responsible 
government granted to, 527; in 
the Australian Commonwealth, 
532; legislation of, 536 

Victoria, Queen of England, 1837- 
1901, accession and political 
education, 445; marriage to 
Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, 
1840, 445; and Hanover, 446; 
abolishes purchase in the army 
by royal ordinance, 1871, 482; 
proclaiiged Empress of India 
(1877), 489, 522; death of, 
513 

Victoria Nyanza, 552 

Vienna, see Congress of Vienna; 
center of European affairs, 1815- 
1848, 28; Conference of (1820), 
44; industrial revolution in, 
153; storm center of 18^8, 169; 
riots in (18^8), 170; Bohemian 
delegation sent to, 172; out- 
break in, 178; Treaty of (1864), 
259, 593; Hungary governed 
from, 388; and the Delegations, 
394; capital of Austria, 395, 
397 

Vilagos, Capitulation of, 180 

Villafranca, Preliminaries of 
(1859), 225-226; annexations 
after, 228-232 

Vill^le, Ministry of (1822-1828), 
82, 88; fall of, 89 

Villemain, 89 

Viiliers, and the Anti-Corn-Law 
League, 452 

Vinogradoff, on the government 
of Russia and the condition of 
the peasantry (1902), 677 

Virchow, 246 

Vladivostok, founded by Russia as 
a naval base, 1860, 682, 687; 
Russia secures the right to ex- 
tend her Trans-Siberian railroad 



Vladivostok, continued 

to, 697; Russian fleet at, 701; 

Japan defeats the fleet of, 702 
Volta, 385 
Vorparlament, 174 

Waldeck, 327 

Waldeck-Rousseau, leader of the 
"Bloc," 364; Prime Minister 
(1900-1902), speech at Toulouse 
concerning the question of 
Church and State, 365; and the 
Law of Associations, July 1, 
1901, 366 

Wales, representation of, in House 
of Commons, 1815, 410; Glad- 
stonian vote in, iSS6, 504; County 
Councils Act of 1888, 506; Old 
Age Pensions Law in, 516 

Wallachia, part of the Ottoman 
Empire (1815), 601, See Danu- 
bian Principalities. 

Wallon Amendment, 345 

Walpole, Sir Spencer, on the Eng- 
lish inventors, 408 and note; on 
the elections of 1793, 413; on 
the death penalty for offenses, 
423, note; on Postal Savings 
Banks, 459; on Australia, 530 

Warsaw, Grand Duchy of, 5; de- 
manded by Russia at Congress 
of Vienna, 6; division of, 8; be- 
comes Kingdom of Poland, 647. 
See Poland. 

Warsaw, Grand Duke driven from, 
108; fall of, 109; capital of 
Poland, 647, 663 

Wartburg Festival, 39-40, 112 

Waterloo, 13, 129, 145, 170, 207, 
406, 418 

Watt, James, and the steam en- 
gine, 407, 721 

" Wealth of Nations," by Adam 
Smith, 417 

" Weekly Political Register, The," 
published by Cobbett, 419 

Wellington, capital of New Zea- 
land, 534 

Wellington, Duke of, 408; and the 
Catholic Emancipation Act 
(1829), 427, 428; on parlia- 
mentary reform, 429; ministry 
of, put out of ofSce, 430; asked 
to form a ministry, fails, 436; 
and the Chartist agitation in 
London, 449 

West Indies, French possessions 
in, 371; slavery in the English 



INDEX 



829 



West Indies, continued 

colonies of, and its abolition, 
439-440; English possessions in, 
519; Dutch possessions in, 581; 
Danish possessions in, 594 

Western Africa, 374 

Western Australia, responsible 
government granted to, 1890, 
528; in the Australian Common- 
wealth, 532 

Westminster Abbey, Gladstone 
buried in (1898), 510; Living- 
stone buried in, 553 

Wet, Christian de, in the South 
African War, 543 

Wetherell, Sir C, speech against 
the Reform Bill, 433; on Second 
Reform Bill, 435 

Weyler, 574 

White Terror, The (France), 73- 
74 

Wilberforce, and the anti-slavery 
agitation, 440 

Wilhelmina, Queen of Holland, 
1890—, 579 

William I, King of Holland, 18U- 
1840, 102, 104; promulgates 
the Fundamental Law of 1815, 
579 

William H., King of Holland, 
1840-1849, 579; and the Consti- 
tution of 1848, 580 

William HI, King of Holland, 
1849-1890, 579; extension of the 
suffrage, 1887, 581 

William I, King of Prussia, 1861- 
1888, German Emperor, 1871- 
1888, becomes Regent (1858), 
247; succeeds his brother Fred- 
erick William IV, 247; char- 
acterization of, 248; and army 
reform (I860), 249-250; ap- 
points Bismarck President of 
the Ministry, 250; and the 
Danish War, 258; alliance with 
Italy against Austria, 261; at 
Koniggratz, 265; becomes Presi- 
dent of the North German Con- 
federation, 269; alliance with 
the South German States, 270; 
interview of, with Benedetti at 
Ems on the candidacy of Prince 
Leopold to the Spanish throne, 
292; becomes German Emperor, 
301 ; his powers as Emperor, 
303-304; Emperor, 1871-1888, 
305; and the Roman Catholic 
Church, 305-310; and Socialism, 



William I, continued 

313, 315; attempts upon the 
life of, 313; alliance of the 
Three Emperors, 320; death of, 
322 

William II, King of Prussia and 
German Emperor, 1888 — , ac- 
cession and character of, 322; 
demands resignation of Bis- 
marck (1890), 323; policy of, 
since 1890, 323; his chancellors, 
323; anti-Socialist policy aban- 
doned, 323; expansion of Ger- 
man industry and commerce 
under, 324; and the navy, 324; 
interview with, published in the 
London Telegraph, October 28, 
1908, and demand for ministerial 
responsibility, 327 

William IV, King of England, 
1830-1837, accession of, 428; 
and the Third Reform Bill, 436; 
death of, 445 

Wilson, son-in-law of President 
Gr^vy, 355 

Windischgratz, commander of the 
troops in Prague, 175; conquers 
Vienna, 178 

Witte, Sergius de. Minister of 
Finance and Commerce (1892), 
policy of, 674-676; appointed 
Prime Minister (1905), 712; 
resigns, 713; and the trans- 
formation of the mir (1909), 
717 

Wolseley, General, in Egypt, 559 

Woman Suffrage, in England, 
Mill's speech in favor of, 464; 
present status of, 516-517; in 
New Zealand, 536; in Denmark, 
594; in Norway, 600; in Fin- 
land, 718 

Worth, battle of, 296 

Wiirtemberg, King of, at Congress 
of Vienna, 4; position in the 
Diet, 29-30; granted a constitu- 
tion (1819), 37; supports Aus- 
tria in the War of 1866, 263; 
joins Prussia in the Franco- 
Prussian war (1870), 294; be- 
comes part of the German Em- 
pire, 301 

Yalu, battle of the, 695, 701 
Yedo, 689; Mikado establishes the 

government at, 692; becomes 

Tokio, 692 
Yokohama, 693 



830 



INDEX 



Yorkshire, gain in House of Com- 
mons by Redistribution Act of 
1885, 494 

Young Italy, Society of, 161-163, 
232 

Young Turks, 636-644 

Zambesi River, Livingstone traces 
the course of, 552 

Zemstvos, established by Alex- 
ander II (1864), 660; restricted 



Zemstvos, continued 
by Alexander III, 671; Prince 
Sviatopolk Mirski and, 708 

Zola, Emile, and the Dreyfus Case, 
360-363; body of, transferred to 
the Pantheon (1908), 363 

Zollverein, 148; advantages of, 149 

Zurich, Peace of (1859), 228, 389; 
Diet at, 584; constitution of the 
canton of, on the initiative and 
the referendum, 589 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL SERIES 

Under the editorship of Charles H. Haskins, Professor 
of History in Harvard University. 

A series of text-books intended, like the American Science 
Series, to be comprehensive, systematic, and authoritative. 
The series will aim to justify the title " American " not only 
by its American authorship but also by specifically regarding 
American educational needs. 

The treatment will be descriptive as well as narrative, and 
due attention will be given to economic and social conditions 
and to institutional development. 

The series, as at present arranged for, is as follows : 

RENAISSANCE AND REFORMATION 

By Charles W. Colby, Professor in McGill University. [In 
preparaiion.'] 

EUROPE IN THE XVII. AND XVIII. CENTURIES 

By Sidney B. Fay, Professor in Dartmouth College. [In 
preparation.'] 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON 

By R. C. H. Catterall, Professor in Cornell University. [In 
preparation.] 

EUROPE SINCE 1815 

By Charles D. Hazen, Professor in Smith College. [Ready.] 
MEDIAEVAL AND MODERN EUROPE 

By Charles W. Colby, Professor in McGill University. [In 
preparation.] 

HISTORY OF GREECE 

By Paul Shorey, Professor in the University of Chicago. [In 
preparation.] 

HISTORY OF ROME 

By Jesse B. Carter, Director of the American School of 
Classical Studies at Rome. [In preparation.] 

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 

By Frederick J. Turner, Professor in the University of Wis- 
consin. [In preparation.] 



HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

34 WEST 33D STREET NEW YORK 



TEXT-BOOKS IN HISTORY 

DOW'S ATLAS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY 

By Earle W. Dow, Professor in the University of Michigan. 
'07. Large 8vo. $1.50. 

Contains thirty-two double-page colored maps, and eighteen 
smaller maps in black and white, covering the history of Europe 
from the ancient empires to the present time. With complete 
index. 

William R. Shepherd, Columbia University:— Its superiority over any 
other atlas of like scope and dimensioiiB hitherto published in English seems 
10 be unquestionable. 

BEMONT AND MONOD'S THE MIDDLE AGES IN 
EUROPE. 395 TO 1270 

Translated under the editorship of George B. Adams, Pro- 
fessor in Yale University. '02. vi + 556pp. 12mo. |1.60. 

The original work has come to be well-nigh universally re- 
garded as the best general account of the period it covers to be 
found in any language. 

George L. Burr, Cornell University:— The book of Bemont and Monod I 
have loug regarded as the very best text-book known to me in its field. 

SEIGNOBOS'S POLITICAL HISTORY OF CONTEMPO- 
RARY EUROPE. 1814-1896 

By Ch. Seignobos. Translated from the French under the 
supervision of Silas M. MacVane. Professor in Harvard Uni- 
versity. '99. XX +881 pp. 8vo. |3.00. 

" The author's capacity for seizing on the decisive events of recent Euro- 
pean history, his skill in using one event to explain another, his steady interest 
in the welfare of the common mass of men, his thorough freedom from national 
or other prejudice, and above all his very suggestive generalizations on the 
later history of Europe, give his work instructive qualities not always found 
in our general histories."- i^rom the Editor^s Preface. 

H. Morse Stephens, University of California, in Book Beviews .-—The best 
history of Europe in the nineteenth century that has yet appeared. 

The Nation :— Remarkable for its range, its precision, and its insight. 

FYFFE'S HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE 

By C. A. Fyfpe. 

Volume I. From the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in 
1792 to the Accession of Louis XVIII in 1814. With two maps. 
Revised. '83. viii + 541 pp. 8vo. 

Volume II. From 1814 to 1848. '86. xii+513 pp. 8vo. 

Volume III. From 1848 to 1878. '89. viii4-573 pp. 8vo. 
Retail price, $2.50 per volume. 

In one volume, Unabridged. '95. xx+1120 pp. 8vo. |2.75. 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

34 West 33d Street New York 



TEXT-BOOKS IN ECONOMICS 

ADAMS'S SCIENCE OF FINANCE 

By Henry 0. Adams, Professor in the University of Michigan. 

573 pp. 8vo. (American Science Series.) $3.00. 

Edwin R, A. Seligman, Columbia University, in "Political Science Quar- 
terly " :— Will at once command attention as a lasting contribution to eco- 
nomic literature. ... It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that Professor 
Adams is at the head of those American scholars who have grasped the essen- 
tial spirit of modern industrial life ; and it is likewise no exaggeration to claim 
Sor this volume the distinction of being one of the most original, the most sug- 
gestive, and most brilliant productions that have made their appearance in 
recent decades. 

DANIELS'S ELEMENTS OF PUBUC FINANCE 

By WiNTHROP More Daniels, Professor of Political Econ- 
omy in Princeton University. 373 pp. 12mo. $1.50. 

F. Spencer Baldwin, Professor in Boston University :— It is a piece of 
work well done both from a scientific and a literary point of view— a text-book 
with a style. . . . The lucid explanation of the financial system of the 
United States makes the book particularly valuable for the American student. 

SCOTT'S MONEY AND BANKING 

By W. A. Scott, Professor in the University of Wisconsin. 
381 pp. Bvo. $3.00. 

H. E. Mills, Professor in Vassar College :— It is clear, comprehensive, and 
conservative. All in all, it seems to me the best single book to use in connec- 
tion with a course on Money and Banking. 

SEAGER'S INTRODUCTION TO ECONOMICS 

By Henry R. Seageb, Professor in Columbia University. 
Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. 604 pp. Bvo. $2.25. 

Journal of Political Economy :— Thoroughly modern in doctrine ; wide in 
sympathy, clear, sprightly, and stimulating in styleandmanner of presentation. 

SEAGER'S ECONOMICS, BRIEFER COURSE 

By Henry R. Seager, Professor in Columbia University. 
467 pp. Large 12mo. 

Intended primarily for those who wish to give only that amount 
of attention to economic theory that is essential to the intelli- 
gent discussion of practical economic problem^ 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

34 West 33d Street New York 



^^^^. 



STANDARD BOOKS IN ECONOMICS 

BUCHER'S INDUSTRIAL EVOLUTION 

Translated by Dr. S. M. Wickett, Lecturer in Toronto Univer- 
sity. 393 pp. 8vo. $2.50. 

The Outlook :— A work of prime importance to economic students. While 
German in the thoroughnesa of its scholarship, it is almost Gallic in its style, 
and is, for the most part, decidedly interesting reading. 

CLARK: THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN AUSTRAL/ SI A 

By Victor S. Clakk. 327 pp. 12mo. $1.50 net. 

Quarterly Journal of Economics :— A valuable work based upon investi- 
gation in the field. Treats judicially the various aspects of the Australian labor 
movement and estimates critically its significance. 

HOLLANDER AND BARNETT: STUDIES IN AMERICAN 
TRADE UNIONISM 

Edited by J. H. Hollander and G. E. Barnett, Professors 
in Johns Hopkins University. 380 pp. 8vo. $2.75 net. 

Twelve papers by graduate students and officers of Johns 
Hopkins University, the results of original investigations. 

McPHERSON : THE WORKING OF THE RAILROADS 

By Logan G. McPherson. 273 pp. 12mo. $1.50 net. 
Simply and lucidly tells what a railroad company is, what it 
does, and how it does it. 

MORE'S WAGE-EARNERS' BUDGETS 

A Study of Standards and Cost of Living in New York City. 
By Louise B. More. With a preface by Professor F. H. Gid- 
DiNGS. 280 pp. 8vo. $2.50 net. 

A report of the first investigation carried on under the direc- 
tion of the Committee on Social Investigations at Greenwich 
House, a social settlement on the lower West Side of New York 
City, among workingmen's families of different races and occu- 
pations. 

ZARTMAN: THE INVESTMENTS OF UFE INSURANCE 
COMPANIES 

By Lester W. Zartman, Instructor in Yale University. 
259 pp. 12mo. $1.25 net. 

It analyzes investments and the earning power of the various 
assets of life insurance companies. The interest rate is calculated 
by a new and exact method. The author also discusses the rela- 
tions of the investments to social welfare, and the proper control 
of the immense a^ets of the companies. 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

34 West 33cl Street New York 



V 









i,N 



O 



^oo,, -^^^i^^: ^^-i ^.4, 



-,,. 4^ 






-^^\^ 



''=' ; * 




:f 



s^^ -^^^ ' ^ 






N ■ V 



, «.~^ . X^'" ■■^- " 



.^<< 



,A''' 









.:^^ v^'"*-, '^- r^ .^^l" "^^ 



^ : r 



'OO' 









^. ^'^'- 



-p. 






^V -^^ 






^^^' % 



,-0' 



A 









xV 



G 0^ 



x^^^. 



■"> 



v 



ci- 



'^. 



'^^. .<<^^ 






•X'- 



'■S^ 



%^' -/>. 



■X'^ 



.^^ -n.. 






cp- 






^>- 



.#■ 



•^^ A^ 



^.^' ^ 






-^^^ .-^^ 



.S -^.i- 







^ 


"-<. 














/ 












J^--. 




■- 


■/ 


'% ' 








'■'^"•<. 


;.?x;' ^ 






rj^ 












.\ 




•o 




/ ,. 




^ <: 


■i' ^ 


A 


] 


« , ^ 


' 








.-^' 


^ 




-/ 








^^ 


/ 




~\__^ 






•^o 


0^ 


x^ 


^^. 






/^ 




x^^ 


-t; 












■^ f? s 






■X^^ 



a\ . \ ■ « * -?:. 



^%'-^»\>^ 



A ^ '/ ^ 



<;-^ 'ci^ 



% ,<^' 



.-^^' 






o:^ -U 



4^' V 






.^^^' 

.'.*^'' 



.^^'% 



'■>.-'• ,\ 



■?.. ' « :■ . 



.o^' 






'0^ 






A^ 






,0o 



v^\ 












X'^^^ s^-\ 



%,# 






^ ,0- 






^^^^ "^ci- 






.0^^- 



-0' 



x*^"^ "^^ 



•\'' *- i^si^'v^ 



■J- .^^ 



0' 



.0 0^ ^ 



.^' •/■', 






^^ '''c. 







*" : ■ 






■ S" 


<>• 


_, 






,V' 


"v<. 








'Q- 




' 






> 


<- 






^ "■ 


<■ 

1^-^' 




C^^ 








■N^ 


c;.. 




, 


^ ^ 






V ^ 


\ 









» 


1 » " 


N. 








O- 


- ''■ "' 


■^■' / ^ 


y-^ 


.x^ 


it 






'C' 


<;^' 


-.- 






.^^^^■ 


'% 


■/ - 







-/- " 



rO' c 












o>' 






'■■p ,,>■ 



''y- v-^ 



ex 



^-^■ .-"^ „^^M'-*W/' V 



.SX^' -.. 






a o' 












^/- .\^^ 



